Why Terrorism Works

[humus_sapiens]

http://www.arutzsheva.com/article.php3?id=2709


Stop thinking like a Westerner and you will begin to understand terrorism.

There was virtually no guilt trip for destroying the great cities of Nazi Germany, Japan or Korea, including the unfortunate victims of war known as "innocent civilians." Once upon a time, democracies knew their enemies and were able to determine general target locations. There was no moral problem with bombing Berlin, Dresden, Hiroshima or Nagasaki, although they resulted in hundreds of thousands of casualties. Yet today, when five civilian deaths are produced in Iraq or two Palestinians are wounded by rubber bullets, the event becomes a worldwide tragedy. Even worse, the targeting of a Hamas terrorist has become synonymous with assassinating a head of state. Why?

How did terrorism manifest itself into freedom fighting and what are the reasons it has emanated from the Muslim world?

When a once great civilization and religious culture fails miserably, it has only two choices. Go out of business or delude itself into believing it has not failed at all, by producing a new false reality of physical strength and spiritual greatness. Thus, terrorism was born to compensate for a hatred of the good and successful, who are also superior in virtually every way. Muslim religious leaders are its major proponents because they see the flaws and fraudulence of their own belief system, which is a frightening concept.

The previously mighty, powerful Arab and Muslim world has fallen into the dustbin of history. It no longer produces anything of value, wisdom, discovery or progress. Those amazing Arabian armies of the desert have been reduced to the laughing stock of West Point studies, with the six strongest Arab nations together being totally decimated by a tiny Jewish nation.

Furthermore, this little Jewish state has become one of the leaders in scientific and technological breakthroughs, while the countries that retain a good portion of the world's oil wealth have trouble building a shopping center. Israel is a hard enough pill to swallow, but America's success cannot even fit into their mouths.

As Western democracies progressed into the 21st Century, much of Arab/Muslim civilization reversed course back into the 16th Century. No more great Muslim warriors; no more medical breakthroughs; no more beautiful writings. The development of modern warfare has made every Arab and Muslim country the "butt" of military jokes. The well-known videotapes of large battalions of soldiers crying and surrendering to the Israelis, waving their hands in the air, or the "brave, great" Iraqi soldiers giving up to journalists during the Gulf War have become embedded into everyone's mind, especially fellow Muslims. Their dignity was destroyed and thus terrorism was born. However, there is something wrong with a mentality that is embarrassed because a tyrant like Saddam was defeated.

Terrorism is a type of warfare where the perpetrators can never truly lose. Since terrorists are made up of many independent cells and events, there is no unified army to defeat and no flag to surrender. Even more incredible, the supportive local populations who most certainly have knowledge of or harbor them, become innocent civilians. Bomb factories, young men living in apartments with AK-47's and no jobs, people shooting rockets and machine guns blasting; yet the neighbors know nothing. Give me a break!

The brilliance of terrorism is that it separates the population from its army so that the foundational populace is absolved of any sins. And thus, you can now have a nation like Iraq being separated from Saddam's Baathist regime in which the Iraqis bear absolutely no responsibility, except for 55 people in a deck of cards. Unfortunately, many Iraqis were part of the problem, but terrorism and a terrorist dictatorship has allowed them to hide. This strategy also entitles troublemakers to blame their rescuers for the entire predicament. Throw in the term "occupation" or "occupier" into the mix, and the total responsibility is cast on the morally decent savior, America.

Terrorists have become great public relations propagandists. Unfortunately, wars throughout history have produced many civilian casualties. That is the nature of the beast. While innocent women and children were certainly killed in Allied bombings over Nazi Germany, the ultimate blame for their deaths was always understood to be Hitler and his evil henchmen. Leave it to the geniuses of "the religion of peace (sic)" to develop a new tactic that makes every Muslim an innocent civilian.

Fighting terrorism has led to an immoral concept – the fighting of a compassionate war. Such an idea is a moral outrage. The nature of war and victory is to totally defeat the enemy and create an atmosphere of fear so that they do not rise up and shoot your soldiers or blow up UN officials having meetings. Of course, a moral nation does its best to minimize civilian casualties. However, terrorists have an uncanny ability to rewrite moral battles into genocidal atrocities, as was done with the battle in Jenin.

Blaming decent democracies is the foundation of terrorism. Because no Arab or Muslim nation is a capitalist democracy, where people can feel proud of their accomplishments, terrorism and the lies associated with it are designed to make their populations feel good. It was obvious that America would become the target of terrorism after Israel. After all, America and Israel are, according to the Islamic world, the only countries stopping world domination of Islam.

The Arab and Muslim populations are desperate to believe that they have not lost every war, that they are not weaker than the Americans or, God forbid, the Israelis. That is why they believe the big lies. According to Adolf Hitler, you heart and your mind have to be open to believe, which is why there can be a museum in Cairo, Egypt dedicated to the Egyptian victory over Israel in the Yom Kippur war.

America and Israel, represented by Christianity and Judaism, are the moral mirrors held up to the face of the Islamic world. They see our successes and our decency. They see how American soldiers treated Iraqi soldiers who were wounded. They see how some Palestinians are treated in Hadassah hospital and how a modern Israeli society has been built in only 55 years. America and Israel are just too superior morally, intellectually and technologically. No one could be that good or successful.

Arafat, bin Laden, Saddam, the Ayatollahs, Assad, the Saudi ruling family, et. al. must all be saying, "We Muslims look like jerks. Let's destroy those despicable, morally high Jews and Christians. They make us all look bad. Wait, we cannot accomplish this goal. Let's use terrorism; it seems to be working."

[Mediocrates]

Why be so pessimistic? As you say, terrorism WORKS......do I need to connect all of the dots? What really is terrorism after all - it's asymmetric guerrilla warfare committed at a VERY low frequency against unarmed unsuspecting people.

Terrorists, their supporters there and here go to great pains to tell you how many/most/all Israelis and by extension many/most/all Jews are legitimate targets. They differ merely by the thinnest of semantic shams on were they put that line.

OK I accept that, I have a target on my back. So do they. I have nothing at all to lose for it. I don't even believe there is much of a downside to it. We can always claim that 'radical elements beyond our control are responsible.' Or simply say 'Of course we decry terrorism but you have to understand that this is merely the survival reflex of a people threatened with their very extinction. Please refer all your questions about terrorism to the PA, thank you.'

Israel needs a 'Third Element'. The country we all recognize as Israel is the political and military 'wings'. The third element is the asymmetric wing. One that operates in the disputed territories as a civil guard or militia. Now I understand that some settlements are partially equipped from a defensive view: night goggles, body armor and so one. But I'm talking about a much more aggressive force similar in structure to Irgun. It's should have two purposes:

1 - To destabilize PA control in Yesha through whatever means including disruption of civil political and military infrastructure.
2 - To aggressivley respond to terrorist activity both pre and post hoc using the same methods, tools and soft targets.


There is no reason why some of the 'settlements' can be restaffed with paramilitaries and turned into covert garrisons.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Israel needs a 'Third Element'. The country we all recognize as Israel is the political and military 'wings'. The third element is the asymmetric wing. One that operates in the disputed territories as a civil guard or militia. Now I understand that some settlements are partially equipped from a defensive view: night goggles, body armor and so one. But I'm talking about a much more aggressive force similar in structure to Irgun. It's should have two purposes:

1 - To destabilize PA control in Yesha through whatever means including disruption of civil political and military infrastructure.
2 - To aggressivley respond to terrorist activity both pre and post hoc using the same methods, tools and soft targets.

There is no reason why some of the 'settlements' can be restaffed with paramilitaries and turned into covert garrisons.


Jewish terrorism is not gonna work: it's morally unacceptable for the vast majority of us, and I'd hate to beat the Arabs at their own bloody game.


from A. Dershowitz's book "Why Terrorism Works":
There is much wrong with certain types and degrees of collective punishment. But there is little wrong - and often something very right and noble - about some kinds and degrees of collective accountability for the actions of popular leaders.

As an example of this kind, it was right for the entire German people to suffer for what their elected leader had unleashed on the world... Since the German people were promised that they would benefit from a Nazi victory - that is part of the reason so many supported Hitler - it was just for them to suffer from a Nazi defeat, even though some among the sufferers were less culpable than others. That is part of what it means to be a nation or a people. Those who start wars and lose them often - not often enough - bring suffering to their people. That is rough justice. It is also a useful deterrent to unjust wars.

Applying this principle of collective accountability to terrorism committed on behalf of a cause, it is not unjust to make the cause suffer for terrorist actions committed on its behalf, especially if there is widespread support for the terrorism within the cause. In this context, recall the poll described earlier, taken in March 2002, that found 87 percent of Palestinians in favor of continuing terrorist attacks. Recall as well that Palestinians claim that Yasser Arafat, who has been instrumental in fomenting and organizing terrorism, is the elected leader of the Palestinian Authority, supported by an overwhelming majority of Palestinians. (The vast majority of those who oppose him do so because they want even more terrorism of the kind practiced by Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad.) Since the cause hopes and expects to benefit collectively from the terrorism, it is just (albeit imperfectly just) to hold it collectively accountable for the murderous acts perpetrated in its name and under its ultimate control. If this benign form of collective accountability can effectively save innocent lives by deterring terrorism, the balance of justice weighs heavily in its favor.


Works for me. They don't value human life, but care about territories? Fine, take from them something they value. Hit them where it hurts!

[Mediocrates]

It's a noble mistake to believe that terrorists care about land or country. They don't - they care about killing you.

[Communication]

Let us not carry on as usual
By NECHEMIA COOPERSMITH



New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg came to Jerusalem August 26 on a nine-hour lightning solidarity trip that included visiting survivors of the suicide bombing that murdered 21 civilians and lighting a candle at the spot where the attack occurred.

He also visited the Western Wall, and then took a bus ride on the No. 2 route on which the bomber struck. It happens to be the bus line I take home everyday from work at Aish HaTorah in the Old City. I didn't plan it, but I found myself on the same bus as Mayor Bloomberg along with Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski, former New York City mayor Ed Koch, 30 security guards, 40 reporters and 10 other regular passengers like me crammed in the middle. And I had to pay for this ride?

I told the Associated Press reporter who interviewed me that I thought it was terrific the mayor had come to show his support and care, and that everyone should do the same. I would have told Mayor Bloomberg so directly, but the cameraman's elbow pressing down on my chest not to mention those 30 security guards prevented me.

When I got home later and told my wife who has pleaded with me to stop taking buses about my surreal ride, she was relieved. "I was hoping you would end up taking that bus home. It's the only one I knew for sure wouldn't be bombed."

She had a point. With all those mayors on the bus, we were totally safe.

Then it hit me: Am I, or my neighbor, or some guy named Mayer worth any less than Mayor Bloomberg? Is the average Israeli citizen's blood really so cheap? Shouldn't we all feel that safe and secure riding the bus home?

PART OF the problem is how we define victory over the terrorists. I hear it all the time: Being afraid to go out for dinner, ride the bus or send our kids on an outing is "giving in to terror."
Mayor Bloomberg's ride on the no. 2 bus was meant to send a message to Arab killers. "You cannot let terrorists win," he said.

I said the same thing to the AP reporter who asked me how I felt traveling on the bus. "You have to carry on living, otherwise you're giving into terror."

But perhaps the truth is exactly the opposite. Carrying on a normal life as if nothing had really happened is giving in to terror.

Just imagine if after last week's horrific suicide bombing 500,000 Israeli citizens said, "Enough! We are no longer taking the bus. We are no longer going downtown. We are no longer sending our kids to school until we can feel as safe as Michael Bloomberg."

That would be a powerful statement: that we are simply unwilling to accept the terror. Our government's reaction would be very different from what it is now.

Israelis refer to this relentless onslaught as the matzav the situation. The Post's Caroline Glick points out the danger in this label. A situation is something we learn to tolerate; we get used to it. After a bombing or a drive-by shooting, we're shaken for a few hours, at most for a few days. The daily failed attempts at murdering our people no longer even register. Yes, it's terrible, but we need to move on and live with it.

Actually, by accepting the "situation" we are giving in to terror. We need to start calling it what it really is: war. At stake is not our willingness to take the bus; at stake is our very survival on our ancient homeland.

Wars need to be fought and won with the conviction that victory is the only option.

AS JEWS, we recognize that our response to this ongoing war of terror needs to be not only in the physical realm; the underlying spiritual causes need to be addressed as well. The physical world reflects the spiritual realm and can be used as a window to understand the specific areas of growth we need to work on.

We frequently fall into a similar trap vis- -vis our spiritual growth by viewing our personal shortcomings as a matzav a situation that, yes, we need to deal with, but all too often learn how to tolerate.

We are now into the Hebrew month of Elul, a period of introspection leading up to the High Holy Days. Let's not allow ourselves to go back to "normal life."

With the merit of collective spiritual growth, may the Almighty bring true peace to the region and to our own inner lives.

And may there be no need for those 30 security guards on Mayor Bloomberg's next visit to Israel.

The writer is the co-editor of Aish.com and director of Research and Development for Aish HaTorah in Jerusalem.

[SteveMetch]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
It's a noble mistake to believe that terrorists care about land or country. They don't - they care about killing you.

The do care about the land “all the land without Jews on it”.

The person who wrote this article “gets it”. The truth shall set you free.

[Communication]

Originally posted by SteveMetch
The do care about the land “all the land without Jews on it”.

The person who wrote this article “gets it”. The truth shall set you free.


If you are referring to the article humus_sapiens posted, I second that.

[Mil]

COMMON people. Terrorism is not specific to Arabs alone or even to Muslims in modern time. In Columbia - a Catholic country, for example, it's a very normal part of life. As in basically all Latino countries. In Africa, Russia and even US is not protected from its own non-Muslim terrorists.

In reality I would not put terrorism as part of a Muslim culture but as part of the Third World. Where ever life sucks terrorism prevails.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by Mil
COMMON people. Terrorism is not specific to Arabs alone or even to Muslims in modern time. In Columbia - a Catholic country, for example, it's a very normal part of life. As in basically all Latino countries. In Africa, Russia and even US is not protected from its own non-Muslim terrorists.

In reality I would not put terrorism as part of a Muslim culture but as part of the Third World. Where ever life sucks terrorism prevails.

Come on Mil,
You are mixing up mafia (organized crime) with terrorism (purposed targeting innocents to mass murder as many as possible to acquire _political_ gains).

Many much poorer societies live without terrorism. BTW, in comparison with the rest of Arab world, the Palestinians are well educated and their income level skyrocketed under "brutal" Israeli occupation. There is nothing inherently evil in Arab DNA, but show me any other society where terrorism has support of 87% of the population. It's the result of persistent jihaducation, plus some cultural "features".

[michael]

Terrorism is better understood as a 'tactic' as opposed to 'a way of life', as some would prefer- for ideological reasons. Unless of course you believe that Jewish terrorism in the pre-state period was due to certian "cultural features".

As for the wish - " show me any other society where terrorism has support of 87% of the population".
I don't know the exact figure but I think Israeli's support for Sharons' policies is somewhere near that, though I hope that "there is nothing inherently evil in their DNA."

And of course humus_sapiens is right, terrorism isn't the exclusive domain of the poor. The US use of state-sponsored terrorism in Nicarugua and else-where is testament to that.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by michael
Terrorism is better understood as a 'tactic' as opposed to 'a way of life', as some would prefer- for ideological reasons. Unless of course you believe that Jewish terrorism in the pre-state period was due to certian "cultural features".


If this "tactic" is being incited and encouraged from the infant age, and officialy supported by HitlerJugend-style brainwash in kindergarten, school, mosque, mass media, while being praised and justified by "friends" (such as ISM), it becomes an integral part of the culture.



As for the wish - " show me any other society where terrorism has support of 87% of the population".
I don't know the exact figure but I think Israeli's support for Sharons' policies is somewhere near that, though I hope that "there is nothing inherently evil in their DNA."


Are you attemting to compare democratically elected Sharon and totalitarian terrorist PLO/HAMAS? Sharon (a moderate today) has been elected to stop the terror attacks and lay foundation for future peace. If he's unable, another more capable leader will be elected.

Oh, and thanks for reminding that the policy of Jews defending themselves is totally unacceptable.

[michael]

No one anywhere has succeeded in ending terrorism through military means. The British ended terrorism in N. Ireland not through Margaret Thatchers tactics but by negotiation based on outstanding grievences. So too in Sri Lanka with the Tamils- several violent civil wars failed to solve the issue of the Tamil north of Sri Lanka. Negotiations have.

Terrorism is a tactic and what needs to be understood is what are the real or preceived grievences that fuel the conflict. If they exist, they can be addressed. Just as desire for an act of national self-determination motivated Jewish terrorists to act against the British in the 1940's, so too are Palestinians.

Sharon and Hamas the same? They use the same tactics, but for different reasons. The description of 'democratic' is a little strained - Israel seems more like a military junta South American style. Retired generals move on to lead the country with barely a missed step.

Placing faith in Sharon as a "man of peace" is farcical. It's hardly surprisng that the architect of Israels' Lebanon campaign should lead Israel to where it is now.

[Mediocrates]

C'mon laddie don't be coy. Other than "I hate all Israelis" what do you bring?

Negotiate, how, precisely? Got anything? I mean anything real that refers to the defintion of the word 'negotiation' and not simply a variation of the old para chant "Jews Out Peace In".

Seriously, anything?

[michael]

How?

Perhaps like talking, face to face without pre-conditions other than observing the rule of law and equal recognition of rights. That seems a fairly reasonable starting point. The mantra of "security first" is an excuse not to enter serious negotiations. This condition is an open invitation for extremists to take control of the process.

A real committment by Israel to dismantle settlements in accordance with international law (and the road map) would be meaningful and would give some credibility to the Palestinian PM in negotiations.

How they might proceed from there is anyone's guess, as complex issues such as water rights and air-space control come up. But without the 2 basic pre-conditions mentioned above, any "peace plan" will fail.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael
How?

Perhaps like talking, face to face without pre-conditions other than observing the rule of law and equal recognition of rights. That seems a fairly reasonable starting point. The mantra of "security first" is an excuse not to enter serious negotiations. This condition is an open invitation for extremists to take control of the process.

Because we understand that (1) the PA supports terrorism and uses it as a tool to extract concessions and (2) that the leaders of the PA are pursuing a strategy known as "stages" in order to destroy Israel.

Of course, there is no way to know whether you simply pretend not to know this, but the fact that you dismiss security as an "excuse" suggests that you either support this deceitful behavior or consider the lives of Israeli children to be of trivial value.


A real committment by Israel to dismantle settlements in accordance with international law (and the road map) would be meaningful and would give some credibility to the Palestinian PM in negotiations.

Tell us, Michael, which is more important: a Jew-free West Bank or an end to terrorist mass murder?


How they might proceed from there is anyone's guess, as complex issues such as water rights and air-space control come up. But without the 2 basic pre-conditions mentioned above, any "peace plan" will fail.

There can be no "peace" with mass murderers. When the Arab/Islamist terrorists and terrorist supporters have been annihilated we can talk about peace.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by michael
[B]How?

A real committment by Israel to dismantle settlements in accordance with international law (and the road map) would be meaningful and would give some credibility to the Palestinian PM in negotiations.

[b]


So it really is just Jews Out Peace In. Anything from the other side? Didn't think so.

I bet you think cell phone agreements are really bilateral contracts too, do't you?

[michael]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Because we understand that (1) the PA supports terrorism and uses it as a tool to extract concessions and (2) that the leaders of the PA are pursuing a strategy known as "stages" in order to destroy Israel.

Of course, there is no way to know whether you simply pretend not to know this, but the fact that you dismiss security as an "excuse" suggests that you either support this deceitful behavior or consider the lives of Israeli children to be of trivial value.

Those clever Palestinians - with their suicide belts they will destroy the mightiest military force in the region. Israels' nukes, navy and air force are no match!

It takes a special kind of intellect to wallow in this tripe. One obedient, subservient and disciplined. Values much admired by those in power. Keep up the good work ibrodsky, you'll be well rewarded.

It's the kind of indoctrination that was commonplace in the Cold War. When some unreasonable person pointed out the vast disparity in forces between the USSR and the West, the right-thinking would reply that the 'Commies' evil and cunning meant they could do more with less.

Oh, and does your concern for children extend to the 6 year old shot and killed in Ramallah by the IDF just yesterday?



Tell us, Michael, which is more important: a Jew-free West Bank or an end to terrorist mass murder?

Neither. Adherence to international law might be considered paramount by some. Which of course aslo recognises that terrorism is a crime against humanity. It might be worth remembering that the practice of moving civilians into terrirtory acquired by force is proscribed by the 4th Geneva Convention. It's best forgotton that this law was formulated to officially criminilise the actions of the Nazis.




There can be no "peace" with mass murderers. When the Arab/Islamist terrorists and terrorist supporters have been annihilated we can talk about peace.

If you really believe this, then I await with interest your 'annihilation' of Ariel Sharon over his "personal responsibility" for Sabra and Shatilla. So, when this is acheived, then "we can talk about peace"??

I won't hold my breath.

[Mediocrates]

You didn't actually respond to anything just there. It was just more pasted random thoughts concerning 'it's all the jews fault'.

Come back when you have something interesting or at least something new.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael
Those clever Palestinians - with their suicide belts they will destroy the mightiest military force in the region. Israels' nukes, navy and air force are no match!

One more time for the slow learners: the Palestinians' strategy is to mass murder and maim Jews. This strategy is no different from Al Qaeda's.


It takes a special kind of intellect to wallow in this tripe. One obedient, subservient and disciplined. Values much admired by those in power. Keep up the good work ibrodsky, you'll be well rewarded.

You demonstrate in the very next paragraph that you believe it was the people in the West who were brainwashed. Decades of indoctrination, intimidation, and brutal suppression of dissent in the USSR are simply swept under the rug.


It's the kind of indoctrination that was commonplace in the Cold War. When some unreasonable person pointed out the vast disparity in forces between the USSR and the West, the right-thinking would reply that the 'Commies' evil and cunning meant they could do more with less.

I don't remember anyone ever arguing that the "Commies" could do more with less.


Oh, and does your concern for children extend to the 6 year old shot and killed in Ramallah by the IDF just yesterday?

Yes, Palestinian child abuse concerns me very much. These savages teach their children to become suicide mass murderers starting in kindergarten. They dress up and photgraph babies as suicide bombers. They send small children out into the street to confront tanks.

And worst of all, they shoot from behind children in order to draw fire on them. It's part of their "one million martyrs" strategy.


Neither. Adherence to international law might be considered paramount by some. Which of course aslo recognises that terrorism is a crime against humanity. It might be worth remembering that the practice of moving civilians into terrirtory acquired by force is proscribed by the 4th Geneva Convention. It's best forgotton that this law was formulated to officially criminilise the actions of the Nazis.

Once again, you demonstrate you would rather use international law to justify the murder of children than to protect them.

If you are capable of putting aside the demands of the "destroy Israel" cabal for just a moment... since most of the Arab world does not recognize Israel there is no distinction, for them, between territory seized in 1967 and the State of Israel.


If you really believe this, then I await with interest your 'annihilation' of Ariel Sharon over his "personal responsibility" for Sabra and Shatilla. So, when this is acheived, then "we can talk about peace"??

I won't hold my breath.

The Palestinian terrorist bases you refer to were attacked by Lebanese Christian forces. They killed several hundred people-almost all of them combatants. This after the PLO destroyed Lebanon's capital and, along with fellow Muslims, killed tens of thousands of Christians in one of their patented jihad-genocide campaigns.

The Palestinians' Sabra and Shatilla lie succeeded where their "Jenin massacre" lie did not. However, not everyone swallows their propaganda.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Mil
In reality I would not put terrorism as part of a Muslim culture but as part of the Third World. Where ever life sucks terrorism prevails. [/B]

Like Tibet?

[Canajew]

Originally posted by michael
No one anywhere has succeeded in ending terrorism through military means. The British ended terrorism in N. Ireland not through Margaret Thatchers tactics but by negotiation based on outstanding grievences. So too in Sri Lanka with the Tamils- several violent civil wars failed to solve the issue of the Tamil north of Sri Lanka. Negotiations have.


But this raises a most serious problem. If I, an agrevied person, knows that the only effective response to terrorism is accomidation, then why should I not resort to terrorism. This is the reason terrorism has worked so well - because nations are prepared to pay to make it go away, notwithstanding that this creates an incentive structire which promotes terrorism in other countries.

And just because no country has successfully "won" a war against terrorism, this does not mean that winning in the future is impossible, only that the past strategies were ineffective.



Terrorism is a tactic and what needs to be understood is what are the real or preceived grievences that fuel the conflict. If they exist, they can be addressed. Just as desire for an act of national self-determination motivated Jewish terrorists to act against the British in the 1940's, so too are Palestinians.


but what if the perceived grievances do not exist? Does that change the calculus at all? You come and demand my new bike. I just bought this bike. You believe its yours. Should I give it to you? Work out some sort of arrangement for time sharing? Ridiculous proposition, it seems.

And the Brits were targeted not because they 'stood in the way' but rather because they implemented policies designed to make jewish defence against Arab terrorism less effective.

And the 'if they exist they can be addressed' argument is nonsense. My grievance is that you are alive. Address that one for me without killing yourself and let me know where you get.

Similarly, for MANY Palestinians their fundamental grievance is that Israel exists. Period. Or, couched in non aggressive language, their desire is the 'liberation of all of historic palestine'. Address that one.



Sharon and Hamas the same? They use the same tactics, but for different reasons. The description of 'democratic' is a little strained - Israel seems more like a military junta South American style. Retired generals move on to lead the country with barely a missed step.


So because a people choose to elect a military leader such an election is not democratic? This position is absurd.

Where defence is a perennial concern of voters, say, because all of the countries neighbours publically declared their aims as the destruction of the state and extermination of its people, then it seems perfectly reasonable that people with military experience would be favoured for executive office. Similarly, in a country where all civilians need to be mobilized to protect against declared foreign aggression and a socialist-like dedication to fellow citizens pervades the nations' mentality, it would also seem reasonable that the best and the brightest and those most capable of governing would excel as military officers, thus rising through the ranks to positions of authority. Israel's army is a meritocracy. those of higher rank generally are more merititious.

Thus explaining the convergence between military and domestic leadership. You should, hopefully, now be able to see that similar circumstances (i.e. military figures acting in the legislature and executive in South America and Israel) can arise under wholly different circumstances, and how analogy without rational analysis can result in a skewed picture.



Placing faith in Sharon as a "man of peace" is farcical. It's hardly surprisng that the architect of Israels' Lebanon campaign should lead Israel to where it is now. [/B]

I would respectfully suggest that it was Shimon Peres and Rabin who led Israel to where it is now. The situation in Israel is better now than it would have been had Israel not acted the way it did. You are comparing it to a baseline - where it was 2 or 3 or 5 years ago. that is an incorrect approach. You must compare Israel to where it would be right now given alternative policies. And given palestinian positions, Israel could not have hoped to be in a better position now than it was (unless they expelled all the Palestinians, which is unacceptable to Israelis)

[Canajew]

Originally posted by michael
Perhaps like talking, face to face without pre-conditions other than observing the rule of law and equal recognition of rights. That seems a fairly reasonable starting point. The mantra of "security first" is an excuse not to enter serious negotiations. This condition is an open invitation for extremists to take control of the process.


you are wrong. An interlocutor is obviously a necessary precondition, because without an interlocutor it is obviously impossible to achieve anything more than a purely paper agreement.

Further, your pre-conditions are an incorrect starting point. Where a substantial proportion of the negotiations involves the delianiation of rights (e.g. what land should the Palesatinians have sovereign control over, where will Jews be permitted to live, what responsibilities each party will have towards the other etc...) an initial stament of an equal recognition of rights will be meaningless if disputes over rights exist. For example, the 'right of return' is a fiction. period. It is not a real 'right' at all and should not be recognized.

Similarly the Palestinians do not have a right to a country. They may be morally entitled to self-determination, but as far as 'rights' go, they never had sovereign control and are not entitled to it as of right. Your pre-conditions are far less sensible than a precondition that the opposing side will baragin in good faith and that it will abide by its commitments.

The security first position makes sense, given that the land was seized from Jordan and Egypt in the first place PRECISELY BECAUSE OF security concerns. Anyone who says otherwise has either been deceived or is lying.



A real committment by Israel to dismantle settlements in accordance with international law (and the road map) would be meaningful and would give some credibility to the Palestinian PM in negotiations.


In negotiations with whom? And there is a trap here. We all know that the Palestinians viewed the Israeli unilateral pullout from Southern Lebanon as a demonstration of Israel's lack of determination and will, and that this proved quite important in their deciding (and they did decide to - they admitted as much) to start the current war, using Sharon's visit to the temple mount as a pretext.

Here's a proposition: where an opposing party (whether in international disputes or in business negotiations) has demonstrated that it perceives, and will treat, any concessions as demonstrations of weakness, it is in the rational best interest of the offering party not to make any such concessions.

Agree?

The Palestinians must demonstrate that their position has changed. But of course, it has not. Israeli concessions are seen as admissions of weakness and as signs that the actions which wrought such concessions (i.e. suicide campaigns) should be accelerated.



How they might proceed from there is anyone's guess, as complex issues such as water rights and air-space control come up. But without the 2 basic pre-conditions mentioned above, any "peace plan" will fail. [/B]

even with these 'pre-conditions' any peace plan will fail as well.

Because additional necessary pre-conditions are necessary - a willingness to bargain in good faith and a willingness to be bound by the terms of any eventual agreement , while yours are not really necessary at all, rather they are designed to get the Palestinians a better deal than they really deserve (not that they deserve much - moral rights to self-determination and the like can be vitiated by subsequent moral conduct like purposely targeting civilians and children and like indoctrinating an entire population).

[Canajew]

Originally posted by michael
Those clever Palestinians - with their suicide belts they will destroy the mightiest military force in the region. Israels' nukes, navy and air force are no match!


You don't really think like this, do you? They are not trying to destroy Israel right now, rather they are trying to get it to capitulate to their demands so that they can put themselves in a position where they can destroy it later. They used Lebanon as a guide in the game of 'if we act this way we'll get what we want and be in a better position to get more later'. Look at Lebanon again for a minute. Israel withdrew like it was supposed to. Lebanon did not and has not excercized sovereign control in the abandoned lands. Hizbullah is still the effective military and civilian governing power in the area. And it continues its shelling and attacks on Israel's north. A good example - use force to get what you want, and they when you get it ask for more.



It takes a special kind of intellect to wallow in this tripe. One obedient, subservient and disciplined. Values much admired by those in power. Keep up the good work ibrodsky, you'll be well rewarded.


what kind of tripe? That the Palestinians do not want to liberate 'all of historic palestine'? That they do not really demand a 'right of return'? That they have used terrorism to achieve their tactical and strategic goals. All of these are statements of fact. That you can dismiss them so easily only demonstrates your bias, not the other way around. For you must either provide explanations for why such assertions of fact are false, or your worldview must be consistent with these facts. Otherwise you are allowing bias to make your reasoning flawed and disingenuous.

And it seems you need a little reminder of possibly the most obvious and fundamental rule of political organization - that the primary goal of a govertnment is to the people it represents. Where people are being attacked in their homes and their children are being targeted purposely, then yes, the primary purpose of a collective government is to provide security for those citizens who form part of the collective. Because without security of the person, all other governmental goals are trivial and irrelevant.



It's the kind of indoctrination that was commonplace in the Cold War. When some unreasonable person pointed out the vast disparity in forces between the USSR and the West, the right-thinking would reply that the 'Commies' evil and cunning meant they could do more with less.


hate to break it to you, but the commies WERE evil. as evil as it comes. their ideology was not inherently evil (though it was underpinned by a flawed economic logic) rather it was those who were actively promoting communism and the tools they used to promote it which were. Not all wars are won with guns, but that does not make them less important to fight. Communism led directly to the deaths of what? hundreds of millions of people?

And in case you didn't notice, the disparity in forces argument is nonesensical. I have the power to destroy the world 100 times, you only have the power to destroy it twice. Power imbalance? maybe. To an extent where concerns can be ignored? hardly.



Oh, and does your concern for children extend to the 6 year old shot and killed in Ramallah by the IDF just yesterday?


If I may be permitted to answer this myself though it is not directed at me. Sort of. All else the same, I would have prefered that the objective had been accomplished without having killed this child. However, for the Palestinians the goal is not achieved UNLESS innocents are killed. A little different.

War is not a risk free option. innocents will likely die. But when given a choice between risking the lives of innocent enemy civilians or absorbing a risk to one's own civilians because of patently immoral enemy conduct which is SUPPORTED by a majority of the enemy population the answer seems abundantly clear - that while you should do all you REASONABLY can to avoid or minimize enemy civilian casulaties (though not to the extent where it either adds significant risk to the ultimate success of the mission's objectives or adds significantly to the risk of casualties among the armed forces) protection of one's own civilians is the paramount concern.



Neither. Adherence to international law might be considered paramount by some. Which of course aslo recognises that terrorism is a crime against humanity. It might be worth remembering that the practice of moving civilians into terrirtory acquired by force is proscribed by the 4th Geneva Convention. It's best forgotton that this law was formulated to officially criminilise the actions of the Nazis.


you are wrong here. Article 4 of the Geneva convention is designed to ensure that domestic inhabitants of varying ethnic backgrounds are not forcibly transferred into newly captured territory, and that the inhabitants of captured territory are not forcefully transferred out of that territory.

It does NOT cover, and was never intended to cover, the voluntary relocation of domestic citizens to territory acquired in war. It is about forcible relocation. Thus the word transfer, which implies direct government action to relocate people (which does not include the facilitation of voluntary movement, this is different).

However, since you are on the subject, it seems that the palestinians' plan to make the west bank free of Jewish inhabitants IS a violation of your cherished article - It would constitute a forcible transfer of people by the governing authority. But I have never seen any Palestinian supporters either recognize this or state that they would be in favour of the palestinians complying with the terms of this article.



If you really believe this, then I await with interest your 'annihilation' of Ariel Sharon over his "personal responsibility" for Sabra and Shatilla. So, when this is acheived, then "we can talk about peace"??


Sabra and Shatilla was not supposed to happen. Sharon may have been incompetent, he may not have paid enough attention, but it was not his intention for these things to happen. For you to say otherwise is for you to presume facts and then draw conclusions based on your presumed facts. As an analysis it is meaningless.

Arafat has been demonstrated to actively support terrorism against israeli civilians. he was a terroist in the 1960s, in the 1970s in the 1980s and in the 1990s. And he is one today. He has made a career out of targeting and harming as many civilians as he felt necessary. Please don't deny this, it will undermine all your credibility to assert falsehoods in the face of overwhelming facts.

Sharon has distinguished himself as a military commander fighting against enemy states and their armies. While he may be more indifferent to enemy civilian casualties than I am comfortable with, this is entirely different than Arafat, and reasonable people should be able to see this.

[peta]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/08/1060145866334.html



Hanan Ashrawi, the outspoken advocate for the Palestinian cause, has won the 2003 Sydney Peace Prize.


What a joke

looks like shes going to be here Nov 2003 I hope she gets tommatos thrown at her.

[michael]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
One more time for the slow learners: the Palestinians' strategy is to mass murder and maim Jews. This strategy is no different from Al Qaeda's.

Isn't that strange, the other ibrodsky had just posted that,
"the leaders of the PA are pursuing a strategy known as "stages" in order to destroy Israel", to which I replied.




You demonstrate in the very next paragraph that you believe it was the people in the West who were brainwashed. Decades of indoctrination, intimidation, and brutal suppression of dissent in the USSR are simply swept under the rug.

Not quite. No one is immune from the doctirnes and idealogy of their own state. Your seemingly incredulous tone, just indicates how successful it can be. I read a comment by a former Soviet citizen who responded to a question about the differerences b/n Govt in the West and the USSR, by saying that at least in the USSR they always knew the Government and the state press were lying to them.

As the old maxim goes "Propanganda is to democracy what coercion is to dictatorship".



I don't remember anyone ever arguing that the "Commies" could do more with less.

There are these wonderful things called libraries.

Author Paul Nitze - "the Soviets can do more with less". This startling revelation came up, rather conveniently, after if became clear that the Soviet GDP was about a quarter of that of the US and its military spending about one half. This lead to the comical situation of the 2 concurrent themes of concern - Soviet power and Soviet weakness. Whatever the situation, a dire threat is always most helpful and there are always 'strategic analyts' and 'kremlinologists' on hand to perform their assigned functions (nowadays they are 'terrorism experts').

Western intellectuals who understand the perogatives of power will always manage to perfrom whatever mental contortions that are required at a given instance. Hence my reaction to your post about the parlous state of Israels security from the threat of Palestinian suicide bombers. Pathetic, appalling, criminal- they are all these and more, but a threat to the state of Israel - gimme a break.



Once again, you demonstrate you would rather use international law to justify the murder of children than to protect them.

There's nothing like a bit of inventive reading is there ibrodsky?

My suggestion that everyone should adhere to international law is justifying the killing of children?

I understand that your arguements are pretty thin, but if you don't have a rational response wouldn't it be simpler just not replying?



The Palestinian terrorist bases you refer to were attacked by Lebanese Christian forces. They killed several hundred people-almost all of them combatants. This after the PLO destroyed Lebanon's capital and, along with fellow Muslims, killed tens of thousands of Christians in one of their patented jihad-genocide campaigns.
The Palestinians' Sabra and Shatilla lie succeeded where their "Jenin massacre" lie did not. However, not everyone swallows their propaganda.

I guess you could try reading the Kahan Commission of Inquiry report. You may be surprised to find that it contains information that doesn't exactly fit this comforting picture.

[michael]

Originally posted by Canajew
But this raises a most serious problem. If I, an agrevied person, knows that the only effective response to terrorism is accomidation, then why should I not resort to terrorism. This is the reason terrorism has worked so well - because nations are prepared to pay to make it go away

It's not the "only effective response" and in fact I would argue it's one of the less effective measures. However, some choose this path. Criminal investigation and punishment are the appropriate response. But looking at any underlying issues that may exist and addressing them where possible, is simple commonsense.



but what if the perceived grievances do not exist? Does that change the calculus at all? You come and demand my new bike. I just bought this bike. You believe its yours. Should I give it to you? Work out some sort of arrangement for time sharing? Ridiculous proposition, it seems.

As above.

Curious you should give this example. This is exactly the case in Gaza and the West Bank. Jewish settlers have been moved in and Israel is now saying in effect, we should have half the bike.




And the 'if they exist they can be addressed' argument is nonsense. My grievance is that you are alive. Address that one for me without killing yourself and let me know where you get.

Quite obviously that isn't a legitimate grievance, but a desire for murder. Most rational individuals have a common sense understanding of basic English words. You can concoct any number of hypothetical situations that pose seemingly impossible conundrums. Reality is dealing with situations as they are and coming up with concrete proposals.


Similarly, for MANY Palestinians their fundamental grievance is that Israel exists. Period. Or, couched in non aggressive language, their desire is the 'liberation of all of historic palestine'. Address that one.

IYO.

Interestingly there was some discusion on the forum about a poll conducted among Palestinian refugees. Many expressed an acceptance that they would never return to their homes. They would like a recognition of that right, but would instead accept compensation for losses incurred.
Or look at polls in Israel - 70% agree that settlements will have to be dismantled and about the same percentage support Sharons' policies. Human nature!
Again reality is useful. The conflict in Sri Lanka was fueled by Tamil demands for a independent homeland - anathema to a central govt of course. No negotiations, no way. But after decades of bloodshed, face to face negotiations did occur. The result - on the very first day the Tamils dropped their demand for an independant state.

Yes some Palestinians call for the destruction of Israel, and so too, do some Israels call for a Greater Israel or transfer of Palestinians to Jordan. Does the latter mean that Israelis are not entitled to their state - I'm sure you don't think so, and the same applies for the Palestinians.

There is a need to keep in mind the gulf between rhetoric and reality, and in the case of the Israeli polls, that beween hope and fear.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael
Isn't that strange, the other ibrodsky had just posted that,
"the leaders of the PA are pursuing a strategy known as "stages" in order to destroy Israel", to which I replied.

Thanks for the correction. I should have said the the PLO/PA's strategy is "stages" and favorite tactic is mass murder.


Not quite. No one is immune from the doctirnes and idealogy of their own state. Your seemingly incredulous tone, just indicates how successful it can be. I read a comment by a former Soviet citizen who responded to a question about the differerences b/n Govt in the West and the USSR, by saying that at least in the USSR they always knew the Government and the state press were lying to them.

As the old maxim goes "Propanganda is to democracy what coercion is to dictatorship".

Actually, I agree that we should all ask ourselves from time to time whether we are being brainwashed. Skepticism, as long as it does not turn into unyielding cynicism, is healthy. However, it's also important to come up with an accurate assessment.

I can say without hesitation that our media is biased and our government is also capable of lies and distortion.

But at the end of the day, I know which side routinely banned competing political parties, which side routinely banned dissenting publications, which side ran "reeducation camps" and jailed even the most civil critics, and which side recruited children to spy on their parents.

That's not to say that none of things have ever been tried by our side; they have.


There are these wonderful things called libraries.

You are right, of course I should not have suggested no one subscribed to this theory. In the US, just about every theory imaginable gets aired. What I meant was that I don't remember this theory ever being accepted as a guide to US policy.


There's nothing like a bit of inventive reading is there ibrodsky?

My suggestion that everyone should adhere to international law is justifying the killing of children?

I understand that your arguements are pretty thin, but if you don't have a rational response wouldn't it be simpler just not replying?

No, you misread what I said. I did not deny that you said terrorism is also a crime. However, there is a valid distinction between land seized in self-defense (e.g., Israel's seizure of the West Bank) and land acquired through unprovoked aggression (what the Arabs tried repeatedly to do to Israel).

Given that Jewish communities were forcibly driven out of what are now called "the territories" and that until the mid-1970s no Arab ME states recognized Israel within any borders, it's debateable whether the settlements are illegal.

But that wasn't my point. I was responding to the fact that you give precedence to the Arabs' complaint about land--when the vast majority of settlements were built on empty land--while only making the obligatory statement that terrorism is a crime.


I guess you could try reading the Kahan Commission of Inquiry report. You may be surprised to find that it contains information that doesn't exactly fit this comforting picture.

I read enough of it, and know enough about Israeli politics, to know it was politically motivated. I'm also old enough to have watched the devastation that the PLO wreaked on Lebanon, and the Islamist massacres of Lebanese Christians by the tens of thousands, during the preceding years.

I suggest you read "The Siege" by Irish-Catholic diplomat Conner Cruise O'Brien. You may be surprised to find that it contains information that doesn't exactly fit the standard pro-Palestinian line on this. O'Brien was no admirer of Ariel Sharon, but he was also seated next to the representative from Iraq at the UN for years and become intimately familiar with the dishonest tactics of Israel's Arab enemies.

[michael]

Originally posted by Canajew
[B]Further, your pre-conditions are an incorrect starting point. Where a substantial proportion of the negotiations involves the delianiation of rights ......an initial stament of an equal recognition of rights will be meaningless if disputes over rights exist. For example, the 'right of return' is a fiction. period. It is not a real 'right' at all and should not be recognized.

It's not about deliniation of rights but where those rights will be exercised, where they are shared rights etc is the basis for discussion and negotiation,but the rights need to be agreed upon in the first place.
Is the observance of the rule of law also a "incorrect starting point"?

I assume that only the Palestinian right of return is in question and not the Jewish equivalent?


Similarly the Palestinians do not have a right to a country. They may be morally entitled to self-determination.... Your pre-conditions are far less sensible than a precondition that the opposing side will baragin in good faith and that it will abide by its commitments.

Entilted to self-determination but not to a country. If that is their "self-determination" then what?

Negotiations in good faith - I agree.



The security first position makes sense, given that the land was seized from Jordan and Egypt in the first place PRECISELY BECAUSE OF security concerns. Anyone who says otherwise has either been deceived or is lying.

The facts of 1967 may lead to a slightly different conclusion than the favoured one.

The former Commander of the Air Force, Erez Weizmann, said that in 1967 "there was no threat of destruction [to Israel]" but the attack was justified so Israel could "exist according to the scale, spirit and quality she now emdodies" (- Haaretz, March 29, 1972).

"Security concerns" it must be remembered are to a considerable extent terms of propaganda, rather than descriptions.




Here's a proposition: where an opposing party (whether in international disputes or in business negotiations) has demonstrated that it perceives, and will treat, any concessions as demonstrations of weakness, it is in the rational best interest of the offering party not to make any such concessions.


I agree to a point. So the Palestinians should learn from the Israeli build-up of settlements post-Oslo that they should never make concessions to Israel. Maybe, but in the end negotiations need to occur unless you believe that Israeli civilians should pay the price of your suggested refusal to show "weakness".
The rhetoic of the Thatcher Govt in GB was the same towards the IRA, but eventually wiser heads prevailed.




even with these 'pre-conditions' any peace plan will fail as well.

Yes, you are right.
I did forget a vital aspect of any settlement. A disinterested third party is required to get the 2 sides together. It seems things are well past the point of hoping that Israeli's and Palestinians can work it out together. The US could do this but chooses not to. Some will argue that the US can play this role but that is pure fantasy at the moment. With the US underwriting the IDF no-one could honestly argue this.

[Noam]

Originally posted by michael
No one anywhere has succeeded in ending terrorism through military means.


No terrorism ever WON anything.

THIS is one big garbage.

Terrorism exists as long as the terrorists BELIEVE they will ahieve tyheir goal with their methodology.
They believe that TERROR==FEAR alone will bring the "enemy" to their knees.

The MOST FAMOUS terrorist was AMALEK (ZInev Banechshalim)--a group of cowards that only killed the weak and the fallen.

Guess what--G-d ordered that speices be eliminated.

Saul Committed the first cardinal sin by letting them live.
We are paying to this very day.

The Arabs will fail with their terrorism because this time they chose the WRONG target.
Had they done that BEFORE the HOLOCAUST--they may have had a chance ( YOu would argue if G-d's promise to A braham about the eternity of his seed would take place..but the Jews went like sheep to slaughter, rather willingly).
However, POST HOLOCAUST--the Jews vowed :"NEVER AGAIN:

THis is something the Arabs simply do not grasp.
They have had a few minor successes--like the Return of Sinai after the "successful" you kippur war,,,,Hizbullah in Lebanon, Oslo,... the General Malaise (Vayishman Yehurun --Va-Yivat ubuiquitous curse of the Jews.....etc)

But when They Comiited the Passover Massacre--they hit the Jewish people in Israel at a very important Solar Plexus--it became clear at that moment even to the MOST secular Jew--that Islam is DETERMINED to annhilate the JEWISH IDEA from the face of the earth. Attacking a bunch of elderly Jews--some Holocaust survivors on the Holiday that celebrates the FREEDOM OF THE JEWS FROM SLAVERY, THE PREPARATION OF THE RECEIVEING OF THE TORAH--the foundation of the JUDEO-CHRISTIAN VALUE SYSTEM of WESTERN CIVILIZATION.... made it clear to the JEWS IN ISRAEL on a very deep level--that they MUST STAND UP to that evil.

On that bitter day in March 2001---ISRAEL STOPPED BEING AFRAID.

On that day terrorism LOST ITS MOST SIGNIFICANT POWER--the ability to bring Israel to its knees.

Like many truths--it takes a long time for the result to show up (Yamamoto knew on the night his bobmbers came back from Pearl Harbor not destroying the Carriers--that JAPAN LOST THE WAR--famous last line of TORA TORA TORAH)--but it took 4 more years and two atomic bombs to bring the INEVITABLE RESULT to fruition.

Well. On that night of the Passover Massacre--the Arabs met their pearl HaRBOR.

Terrorism , as a means to a goal LOST ON THAT DAY...

What you see now is the process. Most of us are too mypoic to see the truth.

But Terrorism in the Middle East is on a FAST DOWN SLOPE.
Now that the US lets us act--we are decimating them ONE BY ONE at an ALARMING PACE!.

It is only matter of time before the Arabs will realize that they WILL NEVER GET ISRAEL TO ITS KNEES VIA TERRORISM.

They may still try to use some last heroic GASP OF A DYING ANIMAL (mega attack like poisening water, Hitting Azrieli, Major food poisening, chemical attack.... )--matters not--- PHILOSOHPICALLY THEY HAVE LOST.


Terrorism NEVER succeded in achieving ANY MAJOR GOAL.

It is one of those myths. We also believe that ALiens look like us rather than a Table Corner.... Human beings can be very stupid at times.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael
It's not about deliniation of rights but where those wrights will be exercised, where they are shared rights etc is the basis for discussion and negotiation,but the rights need to be agreed upon on the first place.
Is the observancew of the rule of law also a "incorrect starting point"?

I assume that only the Palestinian right of return is in question and not the Jewish equivalent?

The most important human right is the right to live. Unless that right is honored, all other rights are meaningless. Until the Arabs stop using terrorist mass murder there is no point in discussing other rights with them.

Regarding refugees on both sides, they should be accorded the same rights. The Arab demand to "return" Arab refugees to within Israel is nothing but an attempt to flood Israel with a hostile population. Most of the people they define as "refugees" never lived in what is now Israel. Only those >60 years old could possibly remember their homes in Israel.

This is just one of several schemes the Arabs promote to destroy Israel. They realize they cannot defeat Israel's military, but they hope they can cause Jews to leave Israel due to mass murder attacks, flood Israel with refugees, and overwhelm Israel by having ten children per Palestinian family.


Entilted to self-determination but not to a country. If that is their "self-determination" then what?

Negotiations in good faith - I agree.

The Palestinians have been offered/promised their own country on multiple occasions. The real problem is not that Israel denies them their own country; the real problem is that they want someone else's country.

Unfortunately, Israel's Arab neighbors rarely negotiate in good faith. Until Egypt agreed to a peace deal with Israel, the Arabs would only negotiate cease-fires which they used only to replenish arms and prepare for the next war. Meanwhile, they used terrorism to violate cease-fires from the start while pretending they couldn't control the terrorists.

(It's amazing how they can't control the terrorists but insist terrorism is "legitimate resistance," pay the families of terrorists, and have generally done nothing to dismantle terrorist groups.)

There won't be negotiations in good faith until the Arab side abandons the popular belief among its people that it is OK to agree to something on paper and then invent excuses for violating it. Note that during Oslo the Palestinians agreed to abandon violence, yet terrorism continued throughout and then instead of making a counter-offer to Israel's proposed settlement they started a war.


The facts of 1967 may lead to a slightly different conclusion than the favoured one.

The fomrer Commander of the Aire Force, Erez Weizmann, said that in 1967 "there was no threat of destruction [to Israel]" but the attack was justified so Israel could "exist according to the scale, spirit and quality she now emdodies" (- Haaretz, March 29, 1972).

"Security concerns" it must be remembered are to a considerable extent terms of propaganda, rather than descriptions.

No, this is leftist propaganda. You choose to trust the ranting of one man. I suggest you go to the library and read a variety of books on the '67 war.

The Arab side made extensive preparations for war. Egypt and Syria were armed to the teeth by the Soviet Union. Nasser, Egypt's dictator, publicly boasted that the Arabs would destroy Israel and "drive the Jews into the sea." Just before the war, Egypt ordered the UN peacekeeping troops to leave the Sinai. Then Egypt blockaded Israel's southern port. These are documented facts.

No reasonable person can claim Israel started the war. Neither can any reasonable person claim that a small country with (at the time) a total of 3 million inhabitants could confidently expect to defeat armies with >ten times as many tanks, artillery pieces, and troops.

Israel used the element of surprise (attacking first) as a necessary tactic to help overcome the poor odds. This is also why the Arab side used the element of surprise in 1973. By then the Arabs had to break through well-defended natural barriers and drive a great distance through territory seized as a buffer zone.


I agree to a point. So the Palestinians should learn from the Israeli build-up of settlements post-Oslo that they should never make concessions to Israel. Maybe, but in the end negotiations need to occur unless you believe that Israeli civilians should pay the price of you suggested refusal to show "weakness".
The rhetoic of the Thatcher Govt in GB was the same towards the IRA, but eventually wiser heads prevailed.

Let's get the facts straight. The Palestinians have never made any significant concessions to Israel. Not one.

Sure, they agreed to "negotiate" while they continued to mass murder Israeli civilians, they "agreed" to create a security force to stop terrorists but only used it to fight Israel, they "agreed" to never again resort to violence (they violated this is 2000 and the world said nothing), and they generally said one thing in English for PR purposes while doing the exact opposite (example: condemning terrorist attacks against Israelis while systematically recruiting, supporting, and even glorifying terrorists in their mosques, schools, and media).

Major conflicts are never resolved until one side militarily defeats the other. It is a myth that conflicts can be ended through a "peace process." In fact, the term "peace process" itself admits a contradiction. Peace is a state of non-hostility; it is not a process.

Eventually, one side is defeated and gives up. Then the parties enter negotiations: the loser's to get the best deal still available and the winners to consolidate their gains and reduce ongoing costs.

The IRA never really came close to winning anything, and the bad publicity they earned for blowing people and things up caused them to lose even the support of their own people.


Yes, you are right.
I did forget a vital aspect of any settlement. A disinterested third party is required to get the 2 sides together. It seems things are well past the point of hoping that Israeli's and Palestinians can work it out together. The US could do this but chooses not to. Some will argue that the US can play this role but that is pure fantasy at the moment. With the US underwriting the IDF no-one could honestly argue this.

No, this is clearly disproved by history. The only real settlements reached in the past were between the warring parties after one side defeated the other. It did not take a 3rd party to arrange peace between the US and Japan or the US and Germany.

While I don't condemn your desire to see violent conflicts settled through negotiations--it would be nice if that could be done--I must point out that it is totally unrealistic. Real settlements can only be reached between the parties when either the party in the wrong admits it is wrong or gives up.

How can anyone argue Israel is the aggressor when numerous Arab countries and paramilitary groups publicly refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist and even continue to call for Israel's destruction?

I suggest a more realistic path to peace:

It's time for the entire Arab Middle East to recognize Israel's right to exist and take steps in earnest to stop mass murder attacks against Israeli civilians. As long as they refuse to take these simple, reasonable and humanitarian steps it is clear that they are the obstacle.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by michael
It's not the "only effective response" and in fact I would argue it's one of the less effective measures. However, some choose this path. Criminal investigation and punishment are the appropriate response. But looking at any underlying issues that may exist and addressing them where possible, is simple commonsense.


In the context of internal terrorism that has internal roots, I agree that the criminal/judicial approach is best. But where such terrorism is engaged in by non-citizens or is supported, through funding, the provision of havens, or logistics by a foreign power, them ther criminal/judicial approach clearly becomes insufficient. It is inappropriate to charge Syria with criminal complicity in the purposeful targeting of innocent civilians. These states which both fund and facilitate the funding of terrorism must be dealt with through diplomacy and military force, not the criminal justice system.

And ther 'underlying issues' to which you refer are internal Arab dysfunctions more than anything else (Ms. Manji's book has allowed me to make this statement without fear of offense) and those cannot be dealt with by Israel. The occupation is secondary to these issues as these issues were rersponsible for the occupation in the first place.



Curious you should give this example. This is exactly the case in Gaza and the West Bank. Jewish settlers have been moved in and Israel is now saying in effect, we should have half the bike.


The Palestinians never 'paid for anything' to pay for something implies that one first expended some labour to acquire said monies in the first place. It was an example meant to illustrate the 'appropriation of labour' and in this sense the Palestinian comparrison is in no way apt. Barren lands hardly qualify, especially in comparrison to the miracle fo productivity to eaely Zionists brought to what is now Israel.




Quite obviously that isn't a legitimate grievance, but a desire for murder. Most rational individuals have a common sense understanding of basic English words. You can concoct any number of hypothetical situations that pose seemingly impossible conundrums. Reality is dealing with situations as they are and coming up with concrete proposals.


Yes but the asserttion of principles, especially where qualifiers are purposely left out, is to describe universals. Your statement of principles were insuffieicnt in this regard.

As far as 'concrete proposals', if I don't have any, does that make my critical analysis of the proposals of others less credible? Less likely to be true? Less worthy of attention?

And the reason I picked that example is because for a large number of Plaestinians and their Arab sponsors, the goal is the clensing of Arab lands ... This is fully relevant to the statements you made, and my 'first principles' type of example was entirely apt, and quite effective in showing your initial universal principle was lacking.



Interestingly there was some discusion on the forum about a poll conducted among Palestinian refugees. Many expressed an acceptance that they would never return to their homes. They would like a recognition of that right, but would instead accept compensation for losses incurred.
Or look at polls in Israel - 70% agree that settlements will have to be dismantled and about the same percentage support Sharons' policies. Human nature!


First. they do not have any right of return. There is no such thing. It is a fiction. It was made up. They believe it is an inalienable right. They are wrong. So where does compromise come from? Us pretending their right exists? Them understanding that what they have been tought to believe and what is are two entirely different things?

So they are both not entitled to return, nor are they really entitled (as of right) to any sort of compensation. So you wish for the Israelis to recognize a fiction because the enemy population has been purposely brainwashed into believing this right exists by their leaders? Seems a silly sort of proposition to me.

And I both think most settlements should be dismantled and Sharon's policies are right (my criticisms would tend to say he has underresponded if anything, not the reverse). The flaw in your logic is that you seem to asume that peace is possible. I do not, at least as long as the Palestinians are controlled by backwards tribalisms and addicted to their cult of death. Any moves towards 'peace' at this point would be counter productive, particularly if Hamas et al would be able to represent that these accomidations and goodwill genstures are signs of weakness.



Again reality is useful. The conflict in Sri Lanka was fueled by Tamil demands for a independent homeland - anathema to a central govt of course. No negotiations, no way. But after decades of bloodshed, face to face negotiations did occur. The result - on the very first day the Tamils dropped their demand for an independant state.


The standard line spouted by the Plaestinians is about the same as it has been since the 1920s. You need to explain why we should expect their culture to produce anything different in the future. they are not tamils.



Yes some Palestinians call for the destruction of Israel, and so too, do some Israels call for a Greater Israel or transfer of Palestinians to Jordan.


a wonderful fiction - say that two different groups exist and impute equivalency, notwithstanding the fact that both the prevalence of these views and the degree to which they influence or affect policy are entirely different. The Plaestinians have, since the outset, adopted a military strategy of PURPOSELY targeting civilians at every opportunity Israel has not transferred anyone, and there is very little chance the Israeli Supreme COurt would allow anything like this, as a transfer would be in violation of Israel's international obligations. The Israeli judiciary is among the best progressive liberal courts in the world. The talk of Palestinian accountability to any sort of judiciary is laughable. Your comparisson is meaningless in any substantive way.



Does the latter mean that Israelis are not entitled to their state - I'm sure you don't think so, and the same applies for the Palestinians.


Not at all. Look at the numbers, look at the magnitude, and look at the actions undertaken by the partiers. there is no equivolence.



There is a need to keep in mind the gulf between rhetoric and reality, and in the case of the Israeli polls, that beween hope and fear. [/B]

bull. The important thing to keep in mind is that the Palestinians have never really demonstrated that they are prepared to leave Israel alone. And unless they can commit to such a course of conduct, there will never be a free Palestinian state (except Jordan).

[Canajew]

Originally posted by michael
It's not about deliniation of rights but where those wrights will be exercised, where they are shared rights etc is the basis for discussion and negotiation,but the rights need to be agreed upon on the first place.
Is the observancew of the rule of law also a "incorrect starting point"?

I assume that only the Palestinian right of return is in question and not the Jewish equivalent?


no, they both are, but not like you think. There is absolutely ZERO support for the position that there exists a Plaestinian 'right of return' which was created by any law or laws, eother international or national. The Israeli law of return, on the other hand, is a validly constituted statute enacted by a sovereign national government. Israeli sovereignty, just like the sovereignty of any other nation-state, allows the state to pass legislation regulating the inflow of foreign citizens and the process by which such people are naturalized.

So even were they both included you would still not get to the position that you are trying to sly up to: that the Plaestinian 'right of return' to Israel proper and the Israeli law of return permitting Jews to claim citizenship in the SOvereign State of Israel are somehow morally or legally equivalent.



Entilted to self-determination but not to a country. If that is their "self-determination" then what?


I never said they were not entitled to a country, I said they did not have a RIGHT to a country and those are different things. They are not entitled to a country AS OF RIGHT. They may be entitled to it on otheer grounds but not on this one.



The facts of 1967 may lead to a slightly different conclusion than the favoured one.

The fomrer Commander of the Aire Force, Erez Weizmann, said that in 1967 "there was no threat of destruction [to Israel]" but the attack was justified so Israel could "exist according to the scale, spirit and quality she now emdodies" (- Haaretz, March 29, 1972).

"Security concerns" it must be remembered are to a considerable extent terms of propaganda, rather than descriptions.


Context? Was he saying that in retrospect it was clear that no threat existed but that the war would still be justified notwithstanding this?

Relevance? Does the fact that both Nasser and Asad declared the war to be a war of extermination and annialation, respectively matter at all or are you of the view that in international relations the rules which apply to Arab nations are different than those that apply to the rest of the world? Surely such statements, and the ACTS OF WAR that were undertaken by both the Egyptians and the Jordanians were sufficient justification for the seizure of the ocupied territories.

Michael Oren's Six Days of War should be read by everyone.



I agree to a point. So the Palestinians should learn from the Israeli build-up of settlements post-Oslo that they should never make concessions to Israel. Maybe, but in the end negotiations need to occur unless you believe that Israeli civilians should pay the price of you suggested refusal to show "weakness".


Israel did not build settlements in accordance with any Palestinian 'concessions' to allow them to so your camparisson is not apt.

And yes, the perception of weakness because of Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon was a MAJOR factor in the thinking of Plaestinian organizers of the current war.

The 'price' of refusal must be compared to the price of accepting, not to some arbitrary base line. Yielding to Palestinian demands in ANY WAY that makes it possible to allow the Plaestinians to perceive that militancy allowed them their objective is, in my opinion, countrer productive. The Palestinians must be defeated and they must give up if they are to ever truly arive at a free state of their own.



The rhetoic of the Thatcher Govt in GB was the same towards the IRA, but eventually wiser heads prevailed.


except, of corse, that calling in bombings of economic targets is entirly different than dispatching terrorists to infiltrate Jewish homes and murder infants, no? Sometimes the magnitude of the act requires a different response. Like September 11th.



Yes, you are right.
I did forget a vital aspect of any settlement. A disinterested third party is required to get the 2 sides together.


Imposssible. Every party in the world is 'interested' in one way or another. I think maybe dispassionate or something to that effect might effectively suffice.



It seems things are well past the point of hoping that Israeli's and Palestinians can work it out together. The US could do this but chooses not to. Some will argue that the US can play this role but that is pure fantasy at the moment. With the US underwriting the IDF no-one could honestly argue this. [/B]

I would never argue it even were it not the case. Someone must bring the Plaestinians in line with real life. Their behaviour is completely and totally unacceptable from any sort of civilized standard. The Americans can't fix this and neither can the Israelis. But until it is, hope of peace and an independent palestine is based on a complete fiction - that the Palestinians want their state to produce a civil society not hell-bent on the destruction of its neighbour.

[Donna]

Since I am not a Jew maybe it is inappropriate that I even say anything.

Your passion, frustration, anger, and resolve have come through so clearly in your post.

But these words that you used:
…the Jews went like sheep to the slaughter, rather willingly.” have very much disturbed me.

For so many Jews to have died at the hands of the Nazis it seems almost impossible, and it may seem at first that the Jews did not resist. But I believe that they did resist, at every opportunity.

Before they were ever shipped to the first camp, they had already been declared sub-humans and had their citizenship taken away. They had no rights, no police protection, they were barred from working, they couldn’t travel, they were arrested and beaten for any reason (or no reason), and they were forced into ghettos where they were starved, denied sanitary facilities, and offered backbreaking slave labor for a chance at a crust of bread or maybe a rotten potato. They were eventually told the lies that they could have a new chance if they would relocate to a work camp and participate in the war effort. How could they not believe it? And besides, men, women, and children who had no means of defense or weapons were up against trained, armed soldiers and policemen. One person’s resistance would just as likely mean that an entire village or community would be shot, and it happened frequently. Former friends and neighbors were often the ones rounding up the Jews.

There were those who hoped that if they just followed the rules and did what they were told, things would get better because that’s the way it had happened in the past. How could they have known that the Final Solution was to exterminate them all?

In the ghettos and in the camps, they resisted whenever possible and in many different ways. By sabotaging factories that were producing weapons so that half the guns were defective. “Things” just happened, right under the noses of the Nazis. Clothes found their way out of the warehouses, as did little bits of food, and sometimes medicines. Numbers from deceased prisoners were substituted to help someone else avoid work or the ovens. Letters were passed, messages from family members were traded, and prayers were said in defiance of the rules. Some did physically fight back, and died for it. There were four who even escaped from Auschwitz and they were responsible for getting the news out about the gas chambers and the extermination camps to the people in the West.

So many little things, but every thing they did that helped them to survive in the face of that horror was resistance.

I don’t know why I felt compelled to post, but again, I hope I haven’t offended anyone. Maybe it was the fact that I’ve been reading a book that I bought for my 10 year old. It’s by Barbara Rogasky, “Smoke and Ashes: The Story of The Holocaust” and these things were fresh in my mind.



Originally posted by Noam
No terrorism ever WON anything.

THIS is one big garbage.

Terrorism exists as long as the terrorists BELIEVE they will ahieve tyheir goal with their methodology.
They believe that TERROR==FEAR alone will bring the "enemy" to their knees.

The MOST FAMOUS terrorist was AMALEK (ZInev Banechshalim)--a group of cowards that only killed the weak and the fallen.

Guess what--G-d ordered that speices be eliminated.

Saul Committed the first cardinal sin by letting them live.
We are paying to this very day.

The Arabs will fail with their terrorism because this time they chose the WRONG target.
Had they done that BEFORE the HOLOCAUST--they may have had a chance ( YOu would argue if G-d's promise to A braham about the eternity of his seed would take place..but the Jews went like sheep to slaughter, rather willingly).
However, POST HOLOCAUST--the Jews vowed :"NEVER AGAIN:

THis is something the Arabs simply do not grasp.
They have had a few minor successes--like the Return of Sinai after the "successful" you kippur war,,,,Hizbullah in Lebanon, Oslo,... the General Malaise (Vayishman Yehurun --Va-Yivat ubuiquitous curse of the Jews.....etc)

But when They Comiited the Passover Massacre--they hit the Jewish people in Israel at a very important Solar Plexus--it became clear at that moment even to the MOST secular Jew--that Islam is DETERMINED to annhilate the JEWISH IDEA from the face of the earth. Attacking a bunch of elderly Jews--some Holocaust survivors on the Holiday that celebrates the FREEDOM OF THE JEWS FROM SLAVERY, THE PREPARATION OF THE RECEIVEING OF THE TORAH--the foundation of the JUDEO-CHRISTIAN VALUE SYSTEM of WESTERN CIVILIZATION.... made it clear to the JEWS IN ISRAEL on a very deep level--that they MUST STAND UP to that evil.

On that bitter day in March 2001---ISRAEL STOPPED BEING AFRAID.

On that day terrorism LOST ITS MOST SIGNIFICANT POWER--the ability to bring Israel to its knees.

Like many truths--it takes a long time for the result to show up (Yamamoto knew on the night his bobmbers came back from Pearl Harbor not destroying the Carriers--that JAPAN LOST THE WAR--famous last line of TORA TORA TORAH)--but it took 4 more years and two atomic bombs to bring the INEVITABLE RESULT to fruition.

Well. On that night of the Passover Massacre--the Arabs met their pearl HaRBOR.

Terrorism , as a means to a goal LOST ON THAT DAY...

What you see now is the process. Most of us are too mypoic to see the truth.

But Terrorism in the Middle East is on a FAST DOWN SLOPE.
Now that the US lets us act--we are decimating them ONE BY ONE at an ALARMING PACE!.

It is only matter of time before the Arabs will realize that they WILL NEVER GET ISRAEL TO ITS KNEES VIA TERRORISM.

They may still try to use some last heroic GASP OF A DYING ANIMAL (mega attack like poisening water, Hitting Azrieli, Major food poisening, chemical attack.... )--matters not--- PHILOSOHPICALLY THEY HAVE LOST.


Terrorism NEVER succeded in achieving ANY MAJOR GOAL.

It is one of those myths. We also believe that ALiens look like us rather than a Table Corner.... Human beings can be very stupid at times.

[michael]

Originally posted by Canajew
Israel withdrew like it was supposed to. Lebanon did not and has not excercized sovereign control in the abandoned lands. Hizbullah is still the effective military and civilian governing power in the area. And it continues its shelling and attacks on Israel's north. A good example - use force to get what you want, and they when you get it ask for more.

Oops. Not quite. Israel remains in a small southern section of Lebanon, claiming it is "disputed territory" hence the continued Hizbollah attacks.




what kind of tripe?

The kind that ibrodsky was peddling. You may have noticed that he posted a correction in relation to this point.





And it seems you need a little reminder of possibly the most obvious and fundamental rule of political organization - that the primary goal of a govertnment is to the people it represents. ....the primary purpose of a collective government is to provide security for those citizens .

Yes. But when the actions of that Government imperil those same people - what then?




And in case you didn't notice, the disparity in forces argument is nonesensical. I have the power to destroy the world 100 times, you only have the power to destroy it twice. Power imbalance? maybe. To an extent where concerns can be ignored? hardly.

You're right if you're talking about US/USSR. But then it begs the obvious question; why the need to argue for increased defence spending because of the Soviet threat? To increase the ability to wipe out the world from 100 times over to 110 times over? Go figure.
But re: Israel/Palestine it ceretainly is an issue.



you are wrong here. Article 4 of the Geneva .........It does NOT cover, and was never intended to cover, the voluntary relocation of domestic citizens to territory acquired in war.

4th Geneva Convention Article 49 - "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies"



Sabra and Shatilla was not supposed to happen. Sharon may have been incompetent, he may not have paid enough attention, but it was not his intention for these things to happen. For you to say otherwise is for you to presume facts and then draw conclusions based on your presumed facts. As an analysis it is meaningless.

Read the report.



Arafat has been demonstrated to actively support terrorism against israeli civilians. he was a terroist in the 1960s, in the 1970s in the 1980s and in the 1990s. And he is one today. He has made a career out of targeting and harming as many civilians as he felt necessary. Please don't deny this, it will undermine all your credibility to assert falsehoods in the face of overwhelming facts.


Your point being?
What ever you suggest for Arafat applies to previous Isreali PMs (Rabin, Shamir)as well as Sharon. That is, if you have a minimum of intellectual integrity

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael
Oops. Not quite. Israel remains in a small southern section of Lebanon, claiming it is "disputed territory" hence the continued Hizbollah attacks.

No, you have the facts wrong. Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon was certified by the UN as complete. Lebanon's own maps, printed before Israel invaded southern Lebanon, support the Israeli claim.

It's interesting that in this case you ignore the UN and, instead, rely on the Iranian-backed Hizbullah terrorists as the highest authority.


4th Geneva Convention Article 49 - "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies"

Please also tell us what the Geneva Convention says that might be relevant to the Jewish community that was driven out of Hebron by the Arabs. Or the destruction of synagogues in East Jerusalem by Arabs. Our the desecration of Jewish holy sites in these areas.

Finally, tell us what the Geneva Convention says about how to decide which land is "occupied" when you are attacked by neighboring countries that insist you have no right to exist and hence no borders.

You overlook the fact that until the mid 1970s the entire Arab ME considered all of Israel "occupied territory" and today only the unelected rulers in Cairo and Amman have, with great reluctance, abandoned this tact.


Your point being?
What ever you suggest for Arafat applies to previous Isreali PMs (Rabin, Shamir)as well as Sharon. That is, if you have a minimum of intellectual integrity

Given that you trust the Comical Ali propaganda that permeates the "Palestinian cause," you may want to double check your own "intellectual integrity."

[Canajew]

Originally posted by michael
Oops. Not quite. Israel remains in a small southern section of Lebanon, claiming it is "disputed territory" hence the continued Hizbollah attacks.


this was dealt with by ibrodsky, and I'll try not to involve too much overlap, but assume I have included his responses in my own. As such, there is really nothing to add to this little tidbit of yours.



Yes. But when the actions of that Government imperil those same people - what then?


by protecting families from suicide bombings? I assume you mean by continuing with settlements and that is a fair point. But at this point giving in to Palestinian blackmail will only further imperil Israeli citizens and will do nothing to make them more secure. Any other point of view, from my perspective, is wishful thinking and is an opinion which is not tied to any sort of objective reality.



You're right if you're talking about US/USSR. But then it begs the obvious question; why the need to argue for increased defence spending because of the Soviet threat? To increase the ability to wipe out the world from 100 times over to 110 times over? Go figure.
But re: Israel/Palestine it ceretainly is an issue.


maybe, but most of Israel's weaponry is not relevant to this dispute. Antiaircraft missiles, for example, and the heavy-grade munitions which Israel avoids using in populated areas are another. Israel obviously has complete military superiority, but in asymmetrical warfare such a calculus does not apply.The Plaestinian terrorists can destabilize both Israel and the Plaestinian areas to the point where Israel. Israel cannot give into them or it will make things worse, and it cannot not fight back because that would be a deriliction of its duty towards its citizens.



4th Geneva Convention Article 49 - "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies"


irrelevant. 'Transfer' implies a direct government involvement in a forcible transfer. Allowing citizens to live wherever they like is not a transfer and does not violate this provision. the subsidies of west bank towns is another matter, however, and may complicate this. All that one can really say, as with much in this dispute, is that it MAY be in violation of the convention.

ibrodsky's point about conquoring land in a defensive war is an interesting one, and appears perfectly valid.



Read the report.


which report? the Israeli governments? Says a little about a nation which will demand such an inquiry, no? And if I remember my Arab propaganda, didn't that investigation find him 'indirectly responsible?" This is far less responsible than Arafat et al. for the purposeful killing of innocnetn Israelis since the 1960s.

No time, rest later


Your point being?
What ever you suggest for Arafat applies to previous Isreali PMs (Rabin, Shamir)as well as Sharon. That is, if you have a minimum of intellectual integrity [/QUOTE]

[michael]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
The most important human right is the right to live. Unless that right is honored, all other rights are meaningless. Until the Arabs stop using terrorist mass murder there is no point in discussing other rights with them.

Yes, but again it applies to Israelis and Palestinians equally. Do Israeli civilians lose all their rights when Palestinian civilains are kiled by the IDF - I think not.



Regarding refugees on both sides, they should be accorded the same rights. The Arab demand to "return" Arab refugees to within Israel is nothing but an attempt to flood Israel with a hostile population. .

My point was only that equal rights should prevail. If there is no Palestinian ROR then there can be no more Jewish 'returnees' - as you say they have "never lived in what is now Israel".



No, this is leftist propaganda. You choose to trust the ranting of one man. I suggest you go to the library and read a variety of books on the '67 war.

Could be. Unfortunately for you there was more than one. Res Gen Matti Peled and Cheif of Staff Chaim Bar-Lev also expresed similiar ideas (maybe they were taken in by the "leftist propaganda"?). There was quite a public debate in Israel at the time. It even made it into the US press - see the Christian Science Monitor, July 17, 1972.




The Arab side made extensive preparations for war. Egypt and Syria were armed to the teeth by the Soviet Union. Nasser, Egypt's dictator, publicly boasted that the Arabs would destroy Israel and "drive the Jews into the sea." Just before the war, Egypt ordered the UN peacekeeping troops to leave the Sinai. Then Egypt blockaded Israel's southern port. These are documented facts.

Yes, there were various provocations and threats made by all sides (Israel too), as has been well documented.



No reasonable person can claim Israel started the war. Neither can any reasonable person claim that a small country with (at the time) a total of 3 million inhabitants could confidently expect to defeat armies with >ten times as many tanks, artillery pieces, and troops.

Israel as David. Very iconic.
You should read Ariel Sharons comments in Yediot Ahranot - July 26, 1973. He thought that Israel was strong enough to conquer the entire middle east.



Let's get the facts straight. The Palestinians have never made any significant concessions to Israel. Not one.

I seem to recall the PLO advocating a negotiated settlement from some time in the mid to late 1970's. That is a Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories, 22% of mandated Palestine. Israel and the US refused to even recognise the PLO as a legitimate representative. Israel and the US maintained this rejectionisat stance up till the late 1980's keeping them isolated and at odds with international opinion. Opposite to your statement, we could state that it's true that everyone made some concessions (eventually). You're far too pessimisstic.



No, this is clearly disproved by history. .............It did not take a 3rd party to arrange peace between the US and Japan or the US and Germany.

Ever heard of Macadonia?
It was to be the next Yugoslavia/ Kosovo just a few years ago, but guess what - intervention by outside parties, mediation and negotiation. Not much happened.
Some would argue that this means nothing would have happened. But by this illogic, no conflict can ever be avoided.


At the risk of being boring, it's clear to me at least that a recognition of equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians in hostoric Palestine is a basis for progress. However, the endless debates trying to claim the greatest degree of victimhood by one side or the other, are a little more boring.

An Israeli scholar had some wise words many years ago.

" Israel may be able to win and win and go on winning till its last breath....After every victory it faces more difficult , more complicated problems...The abyss of mutual hatred will deepen and the desires for vengeance will mount" - Y. L. Talmon.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by michael
[B]Yes, but again it applies to Israelis and Palestinians equally. Do Israeli civilians lose all their rights when Palestinian civilains are kiled by the IDF - I think not.


note your reference to "all" their rights. The Plaestinians have not lost ALL of their rights, in fact they have many rights that they lacked when Jordan and Egypt had sovereignty over these lands. They may not have unfettered rights, but that is not the point. there are an enemy population during an ongoing war. Israel treats them far better than one would expect were the roles reversed.

And Plaestinian civilians are killed by mistake. How you arrive at a moral equivalency is beyond me.



My point was only that equal rights should prevail. If there is no Palestinian ROR then there can be no more Jewish 'returnees' - as you say they have "never lived in what is now Israel".


this is stupid. Israel is a sovereign nation, and it has full authority to set its immigration policy as it sees fit. Your little analogy makes no sense, if you think about it really. the proper analogy would be allowing a 'right of return' into those parts of Judea and Samaria that become part of another Arab palestinian state. And I see no basis for asserting that sort of right, just as I see no basis for a Plaestinian "right" of return. they have no such right under any domestic or international law. Israel has granted that right to Jews in the dispora, and that is well within that nation's sovereign right. Just as Germany favours ethnic Germans in its immigration policy and Quebec (Canada) favours french speakers. Except that Israel, which is, according to the taxi driver I had on Friday, the most multicultural country in the world, and is certainly as pluralistic as any western democracy and certainly a zillion times more progressive than the most 'progressive' Arab regime, has afforded its protection to a historically persecuted and oppressed group.

Again, your analogy reeks of intellectual dishonesty and purposeful falsehoods.



Could be. Unfortunately for you there was more than one. Res Gen Matti Peled and Cheif of Staff Chaim Bar-Lev also expresed similiar ideas (maybe they were taken in by the "leftist propaganda"?). There was quite a public debate in Israel at the time. It even made it into the US press - see the Christian Science Monitor, July 17, 1972.


read more. Please.



Yes, there were various provocations and threats made by all sides (Israel too), as has been well documented.


pray then, would you please provide me statements made in the name of the government of Israel that publically call for the extermination of either the palestinians or any other Arab nation? Your equivolency game will not work here.



Israel as David. Very iconic.

You should read Ariel Sharons comments in Yediot Ahranot - July 26, 1973. He thought that Israel was strong enough to conquer the entire middle east.


it was in July of '73, but that is not the point. its intentions are to protect domestic security and allow its citizens to live a normal life as a free people. The intention of all of the ARab states and the Plaestinian leadership, since the beginning, has been the destruction of Israel and the murder or expulsion of its entire Jewsih population.

This type of thing is like drawing equivolency between Israeli possession of nuclear weapons and Arab possession of WMD - Israeli purposes are defensive, whle Arab purposes are aggressive and sinister. Anyone who says anything else is selling something.



I seem to recall the PLO advocating a negotiated settlement from some time in the mid to late 1970's.


you indeed may recall this. On the other hand, they were lying through their teeth, so why you would ascribe any credibility to the statements of a pure terrorist group (that's all they were at the time) is beyond me. But next time al-quaeda calls for a cease-fire, I'm sure you'll buy that too. Kind of sad, really.



That is a Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories, 22% of mandated Palestine. Israel and the US refused to even recognise the PLO as a legitimate representative.


go figure. This seem irrational to you? Makes sense that an organization, whose primary military doctrine was the purposeful targeting of innocent civilians, would not be accepted as a worthy negotiating partner. And Oslo seems to have proven this to be the correct approach. The PLO was and is a terrorist organization, whose central goal is the destruction of Israel. They are not interested in building a Plaestinian civil society or a nation built on commerce and education. they are interested in destroying Israel (oh, sorry, the "liberation of all of historic Palestine" - I forgot that your readings have only expossed you to code words)



Israel and the US maintained this rejectionisat stance up till the late 1980's keeping them isolated and at odds with international opinion. Opposite to your statement, we could state that it's true that everyone made some concessions (eventually). You're far too pessimisstic.


Your optimism is completely unfounded. How you magically expect the Palestinians backwards tribal amoral society bred on a cult of death to transform into a peaceful neighbour at peace with the concept of Israel's existence is beyond me. Wishful thinking to the nth degree.



Ever heard of Macadonia?
It was to be the next Yugoslavia/ Kosovo just a few years ago, but guess what - intervention by outside parties, mediation and negotiation. Not much happened.
Some would argue that this means nothing would have happened. But by this illogic, no conflict can ever be avoided.


Not every conflict can be solved (absent genocide, which is unacceptable to the Jews and infeasible for the Palestinian Arabs - think about this for a sec, please, unacceptable vs infeasible) and certainly not by the outside world, unless the outside world takes on the task of deprogramming the Palestinians, something it will not do. So if they are not prepared to put up, there is really only one thing for them to do...



At the risk of being boring, it's clear to me at least that a recognition of equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians in hostoric Palestine is a basis for progress. However, the endless debates trying to claim the greatest degree of victimhood by one side or the other, are a little more boring.


but, of course, they do NOT have equal rights, nor really should they have. palestinians are not citizens of Israel. they are not even a peacible people. they are enemy civilians in lands occupied in a defensive war. Until they are genuinely prepared to make peace, something they have not even come close to demonstrating, then they are not entitled to anything close to equal rights. Anyways, you go on and on about their 'rights', what, may I ask, do you see happening to these 'rights' when they gain independence and quickly devolve into another dictatorial kleptocracy? I assume you'll raise about as much fuss as you do about the Saudi Kingdom's brutal oppression of women and minorities and its denial of any sorts of human rights. But I forgot, Israel is THE bad guy. Everyone else is just bad because Israel exists.



An Israeli scholar had some wise words many years ago.

" Israel may be able to win and win and go on winning till its last breath....After every victory it faces more difficult , more complicated problems...The abyss of mutual hatred will deepen and the desires for vengeance will mount" - Y. L. Talmon.

interesting. Strage that hatred doesn't really seem to have 'deepened' on the Arab side. They have been consistently hostile to Israel and the Jews for a long long time now. they seem to be more indifferent to their own well being than they did before, though. Seems like they hate themselves more now, but project this onto Israel. This applies in the rest of the Arab world too, of course, where Israel and the Jews are KNOWN to be the cause of all of the Arab world's problems.

The Jews, of course, plus western appologists, who allow terrorists to advance their claims through illegitimate means, thus encouraging the prolifiration of terrorism throughout the Arab world. keep giving in, and it will only get worse.



Your point being?
What ever you suggest for Arafat applies to previous Isreali PMs (Rabin, Shamir)as well as Sharon. That is, if you have a minimum of intellectual integrity

It does apply, but not equally. Again, your attempts to infer moral equivalancy is dishonest. Sharon may have been involved in war crimes. Arafat was certainly involved in crimes against humanity and in war crimes. Sharon's most serious actions (the targeting of Jordanian homes in reprisal raids) seem more excusable as they were identical actions to those engaged in by the Plaestinian terrorists (i.e. they target our houses so we will target theirs). Compare this to Arafat, who is constantly raising the bar with respect to the purposeful targeting of innocents, and a clear picture emerges. Add to this the openly expressed will for genocide in Israel by Nasser, Asad et al, and you have a pretty clear picture of the circumstances surrounding these Israelis actions. Contrast against the plaestinians, who always, as a FIRST resort, targeted civilians (and I mean first resort since the 1920s), and your little game of moral equivalence falls apart.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael
Yes, but again it applies to Israelis and Palestinians equally. Do Israeli civilians lose all their rights when Palestinian civilains are kiled by the IDF - I think not.

Yes, both groups have the right to live.

However, you stubbornly refuse to admit two key points:

* The Arabs have been purposely attacking Jewish civilians for the past 75 years. If these attacks did not transpire so regularly, there would be no need for regular IDF incursions.

* The Arabs also endanger their own civilians. By indiscriminantly attacking Israelis, they invite indiscriminant retaliation (this retaliation does not happen today, but did happen prior to 1967). In fact, the Arabs have invented an elaborate ideology of "martyrdom" to justify and even seek their own cvilian deaths.


My point was only that equal rights should prevail. If there is no Palestinian ROR then there can be no more Jewish 'returnees' - as you say they have "never lived in what is now Israel".

No, you are confusing the rights of refugees with the rights of a sovereign state.

Let's assume the Arab refugees were forced to flee by Zionists. Obviously, the refugees have rights. What is not so obvious is whether it is to "return" or to be compensated in lieu of returning. It is also not clear whether any of those rights are transferrable to their descendants.

All sovereign states, however, have the right to determine their own immigration policies. Some states accept few immigrants, while others accept many. Some favor those belonging to particular religious or ethnic groups, others favor people they believe are persecuted, and almost everyone sets immigration quotas.

You seem to support the Arab demand that no Jews be allowed to immigrate to the West Bank, even though Jews have always lived in places such as Hebron, and you suggest that non-Israeli Arabs have the right to force Israel also to stop accepting Jewish immigrants.

Do you really imagine this is fair? Do you not see something wrong with demanding Jew-free Arab territories and trying to prevent Jewish immigration to the world's only Jewish state -- the only place on earth where Jews, as a group, have any hope of determining their own fate?


Could be. Unfortunately for you there was more than one. Res Gen Matti Peled and Cheif of Staff Chaim Bar-Lev also expresed similiar ideas (maybe they were taken in by the "leftist propaganda"?). There was quite a public debate in Israel at the time. It even made it into the US press - see the Christian Science Monitor, July 17, 1972.

It does not matter to me whether there was one person who was wrong or one-thousand. The facts surrounding the '67 war are documented.

Please tell me: do you deny any of the following: "The Arab side made extensive preparations for war. Egypt and Syria were armed to the teeth by the Soviet Union. Nasser, Egypt's dictator, publicly boasted that the Arabs would destroy Israel and "drive the Jews into the sea." Just before the war, Egypt ordered the UN peacekeeping troops to leave the Sinai. Then Egypt blockaded Israel's southern port."


Yes, there were various provocations and threats made by all sides (Israel too), as has been well documented.

So you don't deny the Arabs took all of these steps, you just believe Israel was doing likewise.

Please tell me what Israel did that was analogous to blockading her southern port and dismissing UN peacekeeping troops. Please cite public declarations by Israeli leaders (not others) vowing to conquer and destroy Arab nations. Please explain why Israel would wish to provoke a war with five other countries attacking her from all sides.


Israel as David. Very iconic.
You should read Ariel Sharons comments in Yediot Ahranot - July 26, 1973. He thought that Israel was strong enough to conquer the entire middle east.

As usual, you rely on the comments or alleged comments of individuals. Your not so subtle hint that this has always been about Israel's desire to "conquer the entire middle east" is simply foolishness.

Egypt tried to destroy Israel. Egypt's leaders were quite upfront about it, but you apparently don't believe them. Egypt blockaded Israel's southern port and moved troops closer to Israel. Israel seized the entire Sinai. Then, less than ten years later, Israel (whose leaders never vowed to destroy Egypt) gave the entire Sinai (less Gaza) back.

Yet you interpret all of this as signs that Israel has been trying to conquer her poor Arab neighbors who what... seek only to live in peace?

Really Michael, I'm trying to discuss this with you rationally, but your completely out-of-whack sense of reality makes it very difficult.


I seem to recall the PLO advocating a negotiated settlement from some time in the mid to late 1970's. That is a Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories, 22% of mandated Palestine. Israel and the US refused to even recognise the PLO as a legitimate representative. Israel and the US maintained this rejectionisat stance up till the late 1980's keeping them isolated and at odds with international opinion. Opposite to your statement, we could state that it's true that everyone made some concessions (eventually). You're far too pessimisstic.

You "seem to recall" this? The PLO's charter openly called for the destruction of Israel. I think you may be confusing the adoption of the "stages" strategy with a desire for a fair settlement.

I'm afraid you are falling for the Arab's reversal of history. The Arab league met shortly after the '67 war in Khartoum and publicly issued the infamous three "No's." No recognition, No negotiations, and No peace. Again, this is documented. You can quote or misquote some American or Israeli on the sidelines, but how can you deny official Arab League declarations--particularly a declaration that was so unreasonable given that Israel was offering to return the seized territories in return for full recognition and an end to all hostilities?


Ever heard of Macadonia?
It was to be the next Yugoslavia/ Kosovo just a few years ago, but guess what - intervention by outside parties, mediation and negotiation. Not much happened.
Some would argue that this means nothing would have happened. But by this illogic, no conflict can ever be avoided.

I haven't followed the former Yugoslavia that closely. Though I did visit that country in the late 1970s. The official line was that the great leader Tito brought the people together and ended all vestiges of racism. The truth is, and I saw it myself, that he simply repressed these urges which continued to seethe under the surface.

Of course, Western liberals have tried (or are trying) to turn countries such as the former Yugoslavia, Haiti, and Liberia into examples of how appeasement, nation building, and bureaucratic decree can avert all wars. But it's simply unrealistic. Perhaps they did prevent a larger war in Macedonia. But I can show you ten other places they utterly failed during the same decade.


At the risk of being boring, it's clear to me at least that a recognition of equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians in hostoric Palestine is a basis for progress. However, the endless debates trying to claim the greatest degree of victimhood by one side or the other, are a little more boring.

Not boring, but sadly a bit naive. Equal rights is a Western ideal. The Muslim corollary is Dhimmitude, an institutionalized system of unequal rights. If Israel and the territories were combined into a "bi-national" state as I think you may be hinting, I assure you the Arabs would go on a bloody rampage. If you are talking about two separate states living in peace side-by-side, in theory I'm with you, but I see no evidence this is what the Arabs want or ever wanted. Perhaps someday, after their dreams of jihad genocide have been demolished once and for all, they will really become interested in settling for this. I look forward to the day.



An Israeli scholar had some wise words many years ago.

" Israel may be able to win and win and go on winning till its last breath....After every victory it faces more difficult , more complicated problems...The abyss of mutual hatred will deepen and the desires for vengeance will mount" - Y. L. Talmon.

There are scholars and there are scholars. A more honest one would see that the Arabs have hated the Jews since Mohammed's day, and that the Arab world has been obsessed with destroying Israel and mass murdering Jews ever since Israel was founded.

The idea of Jews asserting their right to self-determination on a small slice of land in the middle of the former Islamic Empire is apparently not something the unenlightened Arab masses can tolerate. They can tolerate brutal dictators, lack of basic freedoms; they can embrace baby-killing as "legitimate resistance; and they can refuse to recognize or negotiate with a sovereign state. They can call Israel "The Zionist Entity" and draw "maps" with no Israel. They can subtract one from the number of UN member states, and they can walk out of the room whenever an Israeli representative rises to speak.

In a word, they can act like unsupervised children, but will they ever grow up?

[ibrodsky]

Just for Michael (thanks to IsraelAdvocate):

http://www.omdurman.org/warcrime.html

includes relevant Geneva and Hague conventions...

[michael]

Originally posted by Canajew

And Plaestinian civilians are killed by mistake. How you arrive at a moral equivalency is beyond me



“And when a state orders its pilots to use powerful missiles to hit a car that is driving in the midst of passersby, even if it does not want to harm them intentionally, the nature of the deed, as well as its results, are like those of a terror organization.”-(Haaretz, October 8, 2003).




this is stupid. Israel is a sovereign nation, and it has full authority to set its immigration policy as it sees fit. Your little analogy makes no sense, if you think about it really

That was exactly my point, it makes no sense.




And I see no basis for asserting that sort of right, just as I see no basis for a Plaestinian "right" of return. they have no such right under any domestic or international law. Israel has granted that right to Jews in the dispora, and that is well within that nation's sovereign right. Just as Germany favours ethnic Germans in its immigration policy and Quebec (Canada) favours french speakers

My point was simply in response to yours that Arabs couldn’t possibly have a ROR as they hadn’t lived there. Extending your principle to Jews is “stupid”, of course. I believe in the rights of both groups, and those rights are granted under both the Geneva Conventions and the Refugee Convention. Anyone who denies this belongs to the camp of the rejectionists, such as Libya’s Col Gaddayfi.
An interesting point on Germany – it’s immigration policy actually favours Jews. Any Jewish person anywhere in the world is entitled to and is granted a residency visa on application.




pray then, would you please provide me statements made in the name of the government of Israel that publically call for the extermination of either the palestinians or any other Arab nation? Your equivolency game will not work here.

Perhaps actions speak louder than words. Assassinations, expulsions, invasion of Lebanon, recent bombing in a neighbouring sovereign state. Sound familiar?




I assume you'll raise about as much fuss as you do about the Saudi Kingdom's brutal oppression of women and minorities and its denial of any sorts of human rights

If you’d read previous posts of mine you would see exactly this. A more interesting question is – what is the US position on Saudi Arabia and it’s abuses. A long history of support of course. And while we’re on the subject, which is the only country that denies the vote specifically to women – the US friend and ally, Kuwait.




Strange that hatred doesn't really seem to have 'deepened' on the Arab side

Try reading it again – “mutual hatred”. Do I need to explain “mutual” to you?




Compare this to Arafat, who is constantly raising the bar with respect to the purposeful targeting of innocents, and a clear picture emerges………... Contrast against the Palestinians, who always, as a FIRST resort, targeted civilians (and I mean first resort since the 1920s), and your little game of moral equivalence falls apart.


The bar raising these days seems to be conducted by Ariel Sharon. Having run out of new ideas in the Occupied Territories, it seems that attacking neighbouring sovereign nations is the new tactic. But then that seems his MO – if force doesn’t work, then use more force.
As for “first resort” this is your opinion – though demonstration rather than assertion might be more insightful. Perhaps the PLO supported 1976 UN resolution to broker a settlement through peaceful means may question your assertion. More so the reaction to it – vetoed by the US and a “hysterical” reaction in Israel. The 1982 invasion of Lebanon was similarly instructive. As noted in the Israeli press at the time, the real threat from the PLO was that it represented a “political threat” to Israel in that it wanted a negotiated settlement. The Israeli response was what Abba Eban called the “rational prospect”, that if Israel smashed Beirut to pieces one could logically expect the besieged civilian population to eject the PLO, in order to save themselves. His judgment on the effect of international terrorism proved to be correct of course.

So perhaps I’m wrong on this argument. Maybe terrorism does work. But only, I think, for those states with an overwhelming military superiority that allows them to crush their opponents.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by michael
“And when a state orders its pilots to use powerful missiles to hit a car that is driving in the midst of passersby, even if it does not want to harm them intentionally, the nature of the deed, as well as its results, are like those of a terror organization.”-(Haaretz, October 8, 2003).

According to the Forth Geneva Convention, Part III Section I Artical 28+29,


Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

Art. 29. The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred


Which means, that when enemie fighters are hidning among their own civilians, they hold the full reponsibility for the lives of their own civilians.

Also, according to the Geneva convention, fighers must wear uniforms, (which arab don't), avoid targeting civilians (which the Arabs do the exact oposite), Arabs are occupaying and setteling the lands that are not their own (according the Artical 49 of the Geneva convention).

The refusinks simply caved into European and Arab propaganda or simply bought by larg amonunt of European tax payer money.
Many of the leaders of the many groups of the refusniks are having "jobs" for varius "peace organizations" paid for, by Euorpe. They have expansive PR and more expansive campgaine deisigned to force us Israeli to surrender.

As a Zionist, I can tell you, we Israeli will not cave in, and will not surrender. The land of Israel is our home, and we have no other but the land of Israel. We will self defend ourselves, will what ever means we see fit. You can cry out, demonstrate or boycott our products, it will change nothing. We will still be here, and we will still enlist by masses to the Army and we will still denfend ourselves.

I am a resever soldier in filed intel unit. I keep on doning army reserve duties, on month a year, and so are many many of my firends.

The refusinks are tiny little minority, a fringe groups of extrem leftiest, commies and othe freaks. Since they are so rare and so wacko , they make perfect freak show for board media.



My point was simply in response to yours that Arabs couldn’t possibly have a ROR as they hadn’t lived there. Extending your principle to Jews is “stupid”, of course. I believe in the rights of both groups, and those rights are granted under both the Geneva Conventions and the Refugee Convention. Anyone who denies this belongs to the camp of the rejectionists, such as Libya’s Col Gaddayfi. Whether you like it or not, I can't care any less, the holy land of Israel belongs to us JEWS. Arabs live here according to our curtacy or impotance, not by any made up "right". Israel is ours! and not anybody elses.

Arab claim to the land of Israel is false. Ours is right! Simple as that! Arab claim to Israel is designed to strip Jews from their human rights of selfdetermination. We Jews never theretened Arab national rights any other place out side our rightful lands.

Like it or not, Zionism does not need any defence, more then American, UK or Japanees right of existance. Zionism, is beyoned any need of defence. I may attack Israel right to exist or deny Jews from self determination, it will change nothing!!! Israel will keep on existing despite what ever feeling one have. We jews keep on fighting for our lives, against evil Arab terrorist and their European backers even if the entire world would turn against us. We are more powerful then ever, we can ignore people like you, michael, complatly. Face it, you're nothing for us, less then thin air. I only answer you post out of my own amusment.


Perhaps actions speak louder than words. Assassinations, expulsions, invasion of Lebanon, recent bombing in a neighbouring sovereign state. Sound familiar? Israel has the right of self defense, and we will self defend ourselves, with any means we see fit. Call it what ever you like, we will keep on doing that. I can tell you that a simple reserve soldier, field intel brigade, Intelligance corp.


If you’d read previous posts of mine you would see exactly this. A more interesting question is – what is the US position on Saudi Arabia and it’s abuses. A long history of support of course. And while we’re on the subject, which is the only country that denies the vote specifically to women – the US friend and ally, Kuwait. US policy about Arabia and the Gulf pirincepates, is wrong. Israel never condone America's support for Arab countires.


Try reading it again – “mutual hatred”. Do I need to explain “mutual” to you? "mutual hatered" like that phrase, like the "mutual hatered" of Jews and Natzis... idiotic!

I, as a Jew and Israeli, HATE antisemites, Natzis and anti zionist racist commies. Yes I hate these people with passion, and I am willing to kill them all with may bare hands this minute.

Does that hate of mine wrong? Does my hate for anti semites justifies anti semetism?

Arabs are worst anti semties today. Arabs not only hate Jews, like Europeans do, they are mass murdering Jews as well. Yes, I HATE Arabs as well. Not because they are muslems, not becuase they are Arabs, but because they are anti semeites!

There are Arabs, like the Druz, who are not anti semeites. Druze serve in the IDF, earn ranks, and few years ago, one of them even was chosen to become a govement minister. In Sharon's Likud party (a party I'm also registered in), there are TWO Druz memebers of Knesset. Both hold Col. ranks in combat unites. And there are not unusal or out of the ordinary for a Druz in Israel. It means, we Jews trust Druz Arabs with our lives.

When you talk of "mutual hatered" you drop the realities of action and reaction. cause and result.
In a world without cause and result, action and reaction, you may accuse the Police for the existane of crime, or Firemen for the occurance of a fire. "Both sides for every story" is not always true. Firemen put out fires, not causeing them. Policemen arrest crimminals, not creating them.

There is the science of history, and proper legal process and a conception of real, absolute justace. (all these ideas originate in Jewish culture, these are biblical ideas). It means that rapist, or murderer do not have "their side of the story" and victims of rape or murder are not as responsible for the rape or murder as the criminal are. Criminals are not victims of their own making, of their crime, they simply get what they deseve: Justace, punishment. There is proper and absolute scietific truth about any kind of event. A court should revel that truth and punish the criminal for his crime.

One more thing, quite important. As a Jew, I believe in the freedom of choise, between good and evil. One may choose to do good, one may just as easily choose evil. Justace means to reward the good doer, (usually with happy peaceful life) or punish the evil doer. Jews, like Arabs have the right of choise: Arab may live his life in peace and harmony, on the banks of the Naile or Tiger rivers... he may occupay a land which is not his and attempt to mass murder Jews. (or Americans). If that is the mass murderer choise, and we Jews believe in Justace, we are morally and religiously obliged to kill that Arab mass murderer. What ever happance to an Arab, out of our (or American) hands, is directly linked to the same Arab choises, between good and evil. Every man is responsible for his own actions. Arabs included.


The bar raising these days seems to be conducted by Ariel Sharon. Having run out of new ideas in the Occupied Territories, it seems that attacking neighbouring sovereign nations is the new tactic. But then that seems his MO – if force doesn’t work, then use more force. True! The only way to stop and anti semtie on his track is by force. Anti semetism is not rational or reasonable, and one can not reason with anti semite. If force doesn't do the job, more force is needed.


So perhaps I’m wrong on this argument. Maybe terrorism does work. But only, I think, for those states with an overwhelming military superiority that allows them to crush their opponents. Israel has overwhelming military superiority, we haven't crushed our opponents. Please explain us, who that fact, that terrorist leader like Arafat are still alive and well, while you accuse Israel of "crushing" our enemies?

Arab terrorism is still a majore threat, because Sharon doesn't do what ever the situation demands to half Arab terrorism. We don't use enough force to stop Arab mass murder.

[Noam]

Talking about Geneva Convention in ragard to Terrorism is like talking about Horse manure when discussin car transportation.

Horse are used for transportation...but there is NO CONNECTIOn between a car and a horse.

Geneva convention was NEVER INTENEDED to discusss Terrorism.

[Mediocrates]

A very good short piece on the failure of the therapeutic culture and victim politics.


http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DF70.htm

Hooked on self-esteem

by Jennie Bristow


'There are no heroes in this drama.' With his new book Therapy Culture: Cultivating Vulnerability In An Uncertain Age, Frank Furedi, professor of sociology, prolific author and trenchant critic of the fears and fads of our times, can expect to attract as many new enemies as he can friends.


Like his previous books, Paranoid Parenting and Culture of Fear, Furedi's Therapy Culture - published in the UK today by Routledge - takes a contemporary theme close to people's hearts and knocks it on the head. With its criticisms of the 'growth industry' of counselling and the spread of concepts such as 'self-esteem', the book has received strong interest across the political spectrum in the UK, and will be welcomed on both sides of the Atlantic by people disturbed by aspects of our shrink society. But as Furedi says, 'even many people who kick against therapy culture are prepared to use it' - and Therapy Culture is rather more than just another anti-counselling critique.


Furedi has for some time been concerned about the rise of emotionalism in politics and culture. But the problem, he insists, is not only that today's society celebrates emotion above achievement and reason - it's that it has created a regime that 'praises some emotions and stigmatises others', creating an authoritarian and destructive dynamic.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by michael
“And when a state orders its pilots to use powerful missiles to hit a car that is driving in the midst of passersby, even if it does not want to harm them intentionally, the nature of the deed, as well as its results, are like those of a terror organization.”-(Haaretz, October 8, 2003).


Interesting - so if someone else says something (and an israeli Jew, no less,) then it must be true, but only, of course, if they say what you believe; if they say something contrary, then what they said is of no worth and should be ignored.

Try again, using an actual argument rather than just soemone else saying the conclusion at which you have arrived.

These actions are in no way like those of a terror organization; were the terrorists not to attack, no one would die, but were the israelis not to attack the terrorists, they would surely continue in their aim to PURPOSELY attack INNOCENTS.

That you found others gullible enough to also assert your false paradigm is cetainly no support for the proposition that targeting those who seek to kill your civilians who hide among a population which largely supports the terrorist actions is the same thing as targeting women and children at malls, clubs, movie theatres and cafes.



My point was simply in response to yours that Arabs couldn’t possibly have a ROR as they hadn’t lived there.


this was not my point. My point was that the Arab Palestinians do not have any sort of right of return at law. yes this is in part because very few of them are ACTUAL refugees (rather than UNRWA definition refugees), but it more in part to the fact that there is no such thing as a right of retun anywhere in international law in circumstances in any way similiar to the case at hand.



Extending your principle to Jews is “stupid”, of course. I believe in the rights of both groups, and those rights are granted under both the Geneva Conventions and the Refugee Convention. Anyone who denies this belongs to the camp of the rejectionists, such as Libya’s Col Gaddayfi.


really. So when will you be petitioning all those who will listen to set up a tribunal for dealing with Palestinian violations of these conventions, which, if you are not aware, are FAR MORE AGGREGIOUS than any Israeli violations. For as you so like pointing out that targeted attacks sometimes hurt innocnets and you are, obviously, so concerned about the enforcement of the rule of law and the protection of these innocents that you would certainly support the prosecution of all those militants and terrorists who hide among civilian populations in direct and unequivocal violation of the geneva conventions. Right?

And the refugee convention does not really apply to the Palestinian 'refugees' as the definition of refugee in the Refugee
Convention do not include the vast vast vast majority of palestinian 'refugees'. To wit:



CHAPTER I

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 1. Definition of the term "refugee"

A. For the purposes of the present Convention, the term "refugee", shall apply to any person who:

(1) Has been considered a refugee under the Arrangements of 12 May 1926 and 30 June 1928 or under the Conventions of 28 October 1933 and 10 February 1938, the Protocol of 14 September 1939 or the Constitution of the International Refugee Organization; (all not relevant to the Palestinians)

...

(2) As a result of events occurring before I January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. [also does not include the Palestinian 'refugees']

In the case of a person who has more than one nationality, the term "the country of his nationality" shall mean each of the countries of which he is a national, and a person shall not be deemed to be lacking the protection of the country of his nationality if, without any valid reason based on well-founded fear, he has not availed himself of the protection of one of the countries of which he is a national.


so please, try again to find any sort of real justification for the position that the Palestinian 'right of retun' is nothing more than a complete legl fiction, and please explain to me why i should not perceive a demand for a right of return to be equivalent to a demand that israel be turned over to the Palestinians, as those two demands have been synonamous for the entire duration of this conflict, from the time the Arabs invented this 'right' in the first place.



I said: pray then, would you please provide me statements made in the name of the government of Israel that publically call for the extermination of either the palestinians or any other Arab nation? Your equivolency game will not work here.

you replied: Perhaps actions speak louder than words. Assassinations, expulsions, invasion of Lebanon, recent bombing in a neighbouring sovereign state. Sound familiar?


this is one of the stupider answers I had expected.

First, what you call 'assassinations' are nothing of the sort, they are directed military action against enemy combatants who target soldiers and enemy terrorists who target civilians. Neither action is prohibited by the laws of war, and each is designed to prevent the purposeful infliction of casualties on Israeli civilians and soldiers. both are perfectly acceptable and hardly qualify as assassinations.

Second, the bombing of a terrorist camp in Syria is a perfectly legal action. please read this extract from an article recently written by Ed Morgan, law professor at the University of Toronto and one of, if not the, leding international legal scholar in Canada:



A war of words and the law

Ed Morgan
National Post

Tuesday, October 07, 2003

...

The leading International Court of Justice ruling on the law of war (in this regrad) is the 1988 judgment in the Paramilitary Activities in Nicaragua case. The Sandinista government alleged that the Reagan administration's sponsorship of the anti-Sandinista guerrillas, known as the Contras, constituted an invasion-by-proxy of Nicaragua. While the Contras were seen as an indigenous movement of politically disaffected Nicaraguans, the court found that American financing and training effectively made the U.S. complicit in the Contras' violent attacks within Nicaragua.

The argument levelled by Nicaragua against America is precisely that levelled by Israel against Syria. While Islamic Jihad may be a radical Palestinian movement, it is Syria who finances them, houses their political headquarters and provides training facilities. By the logic of the Nicaragua case, Syria is complicit in the Islamic Jihad attacks and is as culpable as its proxy bombers for the lives lost at Haifa's Maxim restaurant.

The one defence raised by the Americans against Nicaragua is that they were coming to the aid of their regional ally, Honduras, who shares a lengthy border with Nicaragua and who had suffered numerous Sandinista cross-border raids. In the court's view, however, the American counterattacks were unjustified as the Nicaraguans had done nothing wrong in launching attacks deep within Honduran territory. After all, that was where the Contras were hiding and training.

Sound familiar? If Nicaragua can defend itself by attacking the Contras at their bases in a neighbouring country, then Israel can do the same with respect to Islamic Jihad and other violent groups. Again, on the logic of the Nicaragua case, Syria has not been legally wronged by this week's air strike since Israel has the legal right to send its armed forces across the border to the very place where the terrorists are hiding and training.


so if you want to assert that Israeli action was illegal, you will have to address this.

And to bring us back full cirlce, this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the statement to which you were supposedly 'responding'. I said that, in contrast to the palestinians who constantly call for the extermination and expulsion of the Jews, Israeli leaders and the vast vast bulk of Israeli society do not put forth such ridiculous vitrol.

You 'responded' by pointing to several legal responses that isarel has undertaken to attempt to prevent palestinians from PURPOSELY TARGETING innocent Israelis. Don't waste my time, please.

[Canajew]

If you’d read previous posts of mine you would see exactly this. A more interesting question is – what is the US position on Saudi Arabia and it’s abuses. A long history of support of course. And while we’re on the subject, which is the only country that denies the vote specifically to women – the US friend and ally, Kuwait.


so good for you. pay lip service to others while you focus on one of the least aggregious conflicts where the 'victims' as you see it are far more culpable for their own suffering that in any other cases and where the perpatrator is among the most concerned with preventing loss of inncoent life, where the 'victims' are the ones that constantly reject peace and reject stopping the violence that the PURPOSELY started to get back, what?, 2% of their territory and a 'right' of return that is obviuously completely unacceptable to Israel, aside from the fact that it is being a complete fiction, where they teach nothing but hatred and violence in their schools and in their media, and, if you wern't aware, are far more abusive of their own children than the Israeli army is - brainwashing them from birth in a cult of martyrdom and death. Again, your attempts at moral equivalence, both for them, and for you, have failed.



Try reading it again – “mutual hatred”. Do I need to explain “mutual” to you?


please do, and pay particular attention to how you would internalize proportionality into the definition. i.e. 5% of my people hate you but 95% of your people hate me - is there 'mutual' hatred or is it really mostly one way?

Also, what about hatred that is purposely inculcated by the palestinian leadership through outright lies and misrepresentations about both Israeli government positions and the facts as they actually exist on the ground - spreading false stories of massacres and blood libels (i.e. the Israelis are dropping poisoned candy for the children), while at the same time taking action against anyone who proposes moderation, tolerance or mutual undertsanding.



The bar raising these days seems to be conducted by Ariel Sharon. Having run out of new ideas in the Occupied Territories, it seems that attacking neighbouring sovereign nations is the new tactic.


does using the word 'soveriegn' make yo feel more secure in your argument, like that settles things once and for all? And I assume you feel Syria is innocent in all of this, unjustly attacked by a hostile foreign nation? Ridiculous.



But then that seems his MO – if force doesn’t work, then use more force.


well, when facing Arafat, the answer is clearly yes, this is the only way to respond. Read a book or two on Arafat, you would (were you open minded) likely come to the same conclusion.



As for “first resort” this is your opinion – though demonstration rather than assertion might be more insightful.


read a book. it is not my job to explain history to you, especially where it is so readily available. On second thought, maybe it is my job - read "Yassir Arafat: A Political Biography" it will tell you all you (don't) want to know.



Perhaps the PLO supported 1976 UN resolution to broker a settlement through peaceful means may question your assertion.


read more. This is a lie, whether they actually mouthed the words or not.



More so the reaction to it – vetoed by the US and a “hysterical” reaction in Israel. The 1982 invasion of Lebanon was similarly instructive. As noted in the Israeli press at the time, the real threat from the PLO was that it represented a “political threat” to Israel in that it wanted a negotiated settlement. The Israeli response was what Abba Eban called the “rational prospect”, that if Israel smashed Beirut to pieces one could logically expect the besieged civilian population to eject the PLO, in order to save themselves. His judgment on the effect of international terrorism proved to be correct of course.


laughable. I would waste my time, ordinarily, but you have already appropriated a disprortionate amount, so I will leave this ridiculous assertion to others.



So perhaps I’m wrong on this argument. Maybe terrorism does work. But only, I think, for those states with an overwhelming military superiority that allows them to crush their opponents. [/B]

Your arguments are a joke. I may very well be done with them.

[michael]

Originally posted by ibrodsky

No, you are confusing the rights of refugees with the rights of a sovereign state.
Let's assume the Arab refugees were forced to flee by Zionists. Obviously, the refugees have rights. What is not so obvious is whether it is to "return" or to be compensated in lieu of returning. It is also not clear whether any of those rights are transferrable to their descendants.

Isn’t that exactly the original basis of the Jewish right of return, that such a right is transferable to descendants?





You seem to support the Arab demand that no Jews be allowed to immigrate to the West Bank, even though Jews have always lived in places such as Hebron, and you suggest that non-Israeli Arabs have the right to force Israel also to stop accepting Jewish immigrants.
Do you really imagine this is fair? Do you not see something wrong with demanding Jew-free Arab territories and trying to prevent Jewish immigration to the world's only Jewish state -- the only place on earth where Jews, as a group, have any hope of determining their own fate?


My primary objection is to the relocation of new immigrants to the occupied territories, in contravention of the Geneva Convention. Otherwise I simply expect that the right of refugees to return is a matter of principle.
Curiously, you make the point that Jews have a right to live in Hebron as they "have always lived" there. This of course is the Palestinian argument for the ROR, which you claim to reject.

You claim to disagree with the notion of "Jew free Arab terrritories" and accept the right of Jews to settle where "they have always lived". This sounds exactly like the position of those who advocate that Jews and Palestinians have equal rights in historic Palestine, ie. a binational state. I applaud your courage.






It does not matter to me whether there was one person who was wrong or one-thousand. The facts surrounding the '67 war are documented.
Please tell me: do you deny any of the following: "The Arab side made extensive preparations for war. Egypt and Syria were armed to the teeth by the Soviet Union. Nasser, Egypt's dictator, publicly boasted that the Arabs would destroy Israel and "drive the Jews into the sea." Just before the war, Egypt ordered the UN peacekeeping troops to leave the Sinai. Then Egypt blockaded Israel's southern port."


No, those are some of the basic facts –except you tend to overstate the sophistication of Soviet equipment. It was far inferior to the Western product – as was soon demonstrated. Armed to the teeth?
Maybe not, as we’ll see below.
Though the UNEF was an interesting situation. Egypt asked them to leave so they could deploy along the border. They offered to re-position on the Israel side of the border. Israel refused. What many forget is that Israel refused to have UNEF forces in Israel at any stage since 1956. Peace keepers where only ever stationed in Arab countries.






Please tell me what Israel did that was analogous to blockading her southern port and dismissing UN peacekeeping troops. Please cite public declarations by Israeli leaders (not others) vowing to conquer and destroy Arab nations. Please explain why Israel would wish to provoke a war with five other countries attacking her from all sides.

After more el-Fatah raids from Syria, Israel responded by attacking Jordon on November 16, 1966 at Es Samu. 18 Jordanian soldiers and civilians were killed. From Jan to April in 1967 there were repeated border incidents involving tanks, artillery and aircraft from both sides, which were regularly entering disputed areas meant to be under UN control. This lead to an incident on April 7, first between tanks and then Israali and finally Syrian aircraft, which resulted in IAF fighters flying over the outskirts of Damascus and shooting down 6 Syrian MIGs.

One could imagine what you would make of Egyptian planes flying over Tel Aviv prior to the start of the war. Just a little “analogous” perhaps?

The Arab response – nothing. Neither Egypt nor Jordan responded to support Syria.

El-Fatah continued its’ raids in May causing Israeli PM Eshkol to comment,
“….we may have to adopt measures no less drastic than those of April 7”,
and
“..we have laid down the principle that we shall chose the time , the place and the means to counter the aggressor”.

Nasser made clear in his public statements that Egpyt believed (almost certainly mistakenly) Israels’ intention had been “..to invade Syria” (Nasser, public address-June 9,1967.)

Which was in line with Yitzhak Rabins’ opinion on Nassers’ position,
“..there is a difference between concentrating forces in order to get into war and making a move that, while it might end up in war, is not aimed at war…[Nasser] preferred the danger of war, to backing down.” (Ha’aretz- December 22, 1967).

As was the report from a British MP who interviewed Nasser on June 2, 1967. When asked what would happen if Israel did not attack, he replied,
“Yes, we will leave them alone. We have no intention of attacking Israel”





As usual, you rely on the comments or alleged comments of individuals. Your not so subtle hint that this has always been about Israel's desire to "conquer the entire middle east" is simply foolishness.

You could be right - maybe the ‘alleged’ comments by Israeli Chiefs of staff are irrelevant in understanding what happened. But I doubt it.

Whatever you may surmise I’m hinting at, what I’ve actually said is that the threat of destruction in 1967 is a myth. The reality is far more complex. Again, I think the ‘alleged’ comments by ‘alleged’ Israeli military leaders have some credibility.
This is former Gen. Ezer Weizman,
“A state does not go to war only when the immediate threat of destruction is hanging over its head….The threat of destruction was already removed from Israel during the War of Independence.
The question asked now is whether there was a danger of destruction on the eve of the Six Day War…There is no doubt the Arabs threatened us with destruction….the question, however, is aimed at our estimation of the Arabs capacity to destroy us.
Had the Egyptians attacked first, they would also have suffered a complete defeat, in my opinion.
…..we moved up to the Golan Heights only on the morning of June 9 and, this too, after much disruption. If indeed the Syrian enemy threatened to destroy us, why did we wait three days before we attacked it?
We entered the Six-Day War in order to secure a position in which we can manage our lives here according to our wishes without external pressure.” – Haaretz March 29, 1972.







Egypt tried to destroy Israel. Egypt's leaders were quite upfront about it, but you apparently don't believe them. Egypt blockaded Israel's southern port and moved troops closer to Israel. Israel seized the entire Sinai. Then, less than ten years later, Israel (whose leaders never vowed to destroy Egypt) gave the entire Sinai (less Gaza) back.
Yet you interpret all of this as signs that Israel has been trying to conquer her poor Arab neighbors who what... seek only to live in peace?
Really Michael, I'm trying to discuss this with you rationally, but your completely out-of-whack sense of reality makes it very difficult.

I’ll give the last word on '67 to the former US Ambassador in the Middle East, whose opinion, I think, is a fair summary of the facts.
“..no Government plotted or intended to start a war in the Middle East in the spring of 1967. Syria mounted raids against Israel as it had been doing for years, but more intensively and effectively; Israel retaliated disproportionately as it had often done before, but in more rapid succession and in a way that seemed to threaten the existence of an Arab government; Nasser felt his…ambitions in the Arab world did not permit him to stand aside again…and took hasty and ill-calculated measures which made major conflict, already probable, practically certain. All concerned overreacted outrageously. Yet there is no evidence–quite the contrary-that either Nasser or the Israeli Government…wanted and sought a major war at this juncture.” (Foreign Affairs. Jan, 1968)

As for Israel offering 'peace' after the Six Day War. I think this is a little hard to swallow given Israel didn't accept UN Res 242 and soon after commenced an offical policy, drafted by Moshe Dayan, to retain the occupied territories, to settle them, but to ensure no Arabs in the territories could claim Israeli citizinship.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael
Isn’t that exactly the original basis of the Jewish right of return, that such a right is transferable to descendants?

No, it is not. Of course Jews are welcome to immigrate to the world's only Jewish state. But it's not based on a "right of return."


My primary objection is to the relocation of new immigrants to the occupied territories, in contravention of the Geneva Convention. Otherwise I simply expect that the right of refugees to return is a matter of principle.

Most of the Arab world does not recognize Israel, and there has been no negotiated agreement regarding Israel's borders. As I've stated many times, most Arab countries consider Tel Aviv "occupied territory."

Mass murdering Jewish civilians is also "in contravention of the Geneva Convention."


Curiously, you make the point that Jews have a right to live in Hebron as they "have always lived" there. This of course is the Palestinian argument for the ROR, which you claim to reject.

No, there are nearly one million Arabs living in Israel. That is more than lived in those locations before the state of Israel was established.

Israel does not claim that millions of Jews have a "right of return" to the disputed territories. The number of Jews living in Hebron is small. No one claims large numbers of Jews have a "right of return" to Hebron.

Of course, you know full well that the Palestinian "right of return" demand is designed to flood Israel with Arabs as a step towards destroying the Jewish state. In contrast, Israel has resisted the temptation to annex the West Bank, though it has the military power to do so.


You claim to disagree with the notion of "Jew free Arab terrritories" and accept the right of Jews to settle where "they have always lived". This sounds exactly like the position of those who advocate that Jews and Palestinians have equal rights in historic Palestine, ie. a binational state. I applaud your courage.

I don't "claim" to disagree with the Arabs' racist demand for Jew-free territories. I do disagree with their racist demand. As I've explained above, I don't demand any "right of return" of Jews to the disputed territories. In fact, if the Arabs were really interested in peace and reasonable compromise, I would support the establishment of a Palestinian state in the territories that would be able to determine its own immigration policies.

But as long as the Arabs continue to mass murder Jews, I hope Israel will continue to make unilateral decisions regarding the disputed territories. The Islamist mass murderers and supporters in the PA should be made to pay a high price for their evil deeds.


No, those are some of the basic facts –except you tend to overstate the sophistication of Soviet equipment. It was far inferior to the Western product – as was soon demonstrated. Armed to the teeth?

Yes, the Arabs received massive military aid from the USSR. You don't imagine Arab countries could make tanks and planes themselves, do you?

The inferiority of Soviet technology was/is their problem.


Though the UNEF was an interesting situation. Egypt asked them to leave so they could deploy along the border. They offered to re-position on the Israel side of the border. Israel refused. What many forget is that Israel refused to have UNEF forces in Israel at any stage since 1956. Peace keepers where only ever stationed in Arab countries.

Since the Arabs vowed to destroy Israel, and the Sinai was largely uninhabited, it made sense to position "peacekeeping" troops in the Sinai. Israel has correctly resisted the positioning of "peacekeeping" forces in Israel or territories under Israeli control because that would only interfere with Israel's ability to defend itself.

Of course, the Arabs know this and that is precisely why they press this demand.


After more el-Fatah raids from Syria, Israel responded by attacking Jordon on November 16, 1966 at Es Samu. 18 Jordanian soldiers and civilians were killed. From Jan to April in 1967 there were repeated border incidents involving tanks, artillery and aircraft from both sides, which were regularly entering disputed areas meant to be under UN control. This lead to an incident on April 7, first between tanks and then Israali and finally Syrian aircraft, which resulted in IAF fighters flying over the outskirts of Damascus and shooting down 6 Syrian MIGs.

Are you seriously suggesting that Israel provoked the '67 war by daring to defend itself against ongoing attacks from Syria and Jordan?


One could imagine what you would make of Egyptian planes flying over Tel Aviv prior to the start of the war. Just a little “analogous” perhaps?

Don't you feel even a little shame for suggesting Arab terrorism and a decades-long war to destroy Israel are the result of Israeli provocation?

How do flyovers--clearly meant to warn enemies--compare to mass murder attacks?


The Arab response – nothing. Neither Egypt nor Jordan responded to support Syria.

Terrorist attacks were staged from both Egypt and Jordan.


As was the report from a British MP who interviewed Nasser on June 2, 1967. When asked what would happen if Israel did not attack, he replied,
“Yes, we will leave them alone. We have no intention of attacking Israel”

Yet on other occasions he publicly proclaimed that the Arabs would "Drive the Jews into the sea."

Of course, this doubletalk and lying is old hat. You choose to believe the Comical Ali version of events.

The facts speak for themselves. The Arabs opposed the creation of the State of Israel. The Arabs vowed to erase that state. The Arabs have supported mass murder attacks to that end. Yet you claim Israel is the aggressor.


Whatever you may surmise I’m hinting at, what I’ve actually said is that the threat of destruction in 1967 is a myth. The reality is far more complex. Again, I think the ‘alleged’ comments by ‘alleged’ Israeli military leaders have some credibility.
This is former Gen. Ezer Weizman,
“A state does not go to war only when the immediate threat of destruction is hanging over its head….The threat of destruction was already removed from Israel during the War of Independence.

You can quote Israelis expressing different opinions because they are permitted to express different opinions. That doesn't make those opinions correct. Nor does the lack of freedom of expression in Arab police states mean that the official view was/is correct.


We entered the Six-Day War in order to secure a position in which we can manage our lives here according to our wishes without external pressure.” – Haaretz March 29, 1972.

Yep. But "External pressure" is a euphemism for jihad-genocide attacks.


I’ll give the last word on '67 to the former US Ambassador in the Middle East, whose opinion, I think, is a fair summary of the facts.
“..no Government plotted or intended to start a war in the Middle East in the spring of 1967. Syria mounted raids against Israel as it had been doing for years, but more intensively and effectively; Israel retaliated disproportionately as it had often done before...

You can quote and misquote people till the cows come home. Pretend as you will that blockading Israel's southern port, kicking out UN peacekeeping forces, stepping up mass murder attacks, and publicly boasting that you intend to destroy Israel were simply posturing. Reasonable people interpret such actions for what they were.


As for Israel offering 'peace' after the Six Day War. I think this is a little hard to swallow given Israel didn't accept UN Res 242 and soon after commenced an offical policy, drafted by Moshe Dayan, to retain the occupied territories, to settle them, but to ensure no Arabs in the territories could claim Israeli citizinship.

Then what were the Arabs responding to when they issued their Khartoum resolution (the Three No's) shortly after?

[michael]

Originally posted by ibrodsky

Are you seriously suggesting that Israel provoked the '67 war by daring to defend itself against ongoing attacks from Syria and Jordan?
Don't you feel even a little shame for suggesting Arab terrorism and a decades-long war to destroy Israel are the result of Israeli provocation?
How do flyovers--clearly meant to warn enemies--compare to mass murder attacks?


Forgetful aren’t you?
My argument was that ’67 didn’t represent the threat of destruction of Israel as you claimed. You countered with a demand that I “Please tell...what Israel did.” Which I did.

Israel provoked the war? No. I agree with the US Ambassadors' views that neither side wanted a war.

You argued that Egyptian action of requesting the removal of peacekeepers (there right as was Israels’ refusal to have any) is a clear sign intent for war, but flying military aircraft over a capital is just “to warn” them.
Maybe it’s not true, that “reasonable people interpret such actions for what they are”, as you suggested, except when it's convenient.


You wanted me to “cite public declarations by Israeli leaders”.

Well here’s a few more. This time from the Israeli chief of military intelligence (General Aharon Yaariv) who provided a background briefing to journalists on May 12, 1967. It gives some insight into the deadly threat Israel believed Syria posed,
“The Syrians use this weapon of guerilla activity .. because they know they cannot face us in open battle, because they are militarily very weak, and they know we are bent upon establishing certain positions, certain facts along the border.”



Neither can any reasonable person claim that a small country with (at the time) a total of 3 million inhabitants could confidently expect to defeat armies with >ten times as many tanks, artillery pieces, and troops.

If your statement about the balance of forces is true, you proposition would be reasonable. But that of course is the starting point to assessing your claim- are those figures (>10x more) accurate, or even in the ball park? Again, public statements from Israeli military leaders might help,

“..the Epyptians concentrated 80,000 soldiers in the Sinai, and we mobilized hundreds of thousands against them” – ex-Gen Matti Peled, March 13, 1972.

“we must make it clear to the Syrians that they cannot continue this way and the only way … is by using force…. I could say we must use force in order to have the Egyptians convince the Syrians…..I think that the only sure and safe answer to the problem is a military operation of great size and strength” – Gen Aharon Yaariv, May 12,1967.

“they[Syria] are militarily very weak”- Gen Yaariv.


On the issue of the UNEF. You argued that Israel refused to station UNEF inside Israel as this would “interfere with ....ability to defend ”. I think you’re right, peacekeeping forces make it more difficult to mount military operations. This is borne out by Egypt requesting the removal of UNEF so they could move troops to the border. This of course undercuts the argument that the Arab forces were vastly superior to Israel - part of the preferred version. If the Arab forces were vastly superior, why did they allow the presence of UNEF in their territories and so "interfere" with them? This tends to support the view held by Israels’ military leaders.

Clearly, my reliance on the public statements by “Israeli leaders” is just another example of my “out of whack sense of reality”.

Even more clearly, public statements, reported in the press in Israel at the time, by Israeli military leaders who were involved in the event itself, carry a high degree of credibility on the issue and therefore must be taken into account in any understanding of what was occurring. But for you, no doubt, this is “ranting” and an example of my inability to “discuss this with you rationally”.

It’s easy to hold views which are convenient to believe, no matter what the facts may be.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael
It’s easy to hold views which are convenient to believe, no matter what the facts may be.

Well, at least we agree on that.

Michael, I'm trying to discuss this with you in civil fashion. Your take on the '67 war conflicts with every credible account.

The basic facts were:

1. Egypt blockaded Israel's southern port--an act of war.
2. Egypt's leader publicly boasted he would "Drive the Jews into the sea."
3. Egypt dismissed UN peacekeepers and moved troops close to Israel.
4. Egypt and Syria were heavily armed by the Soviet Union.
5. Murderous attacks were staged from Jordan, Syria, and Egypt against Israelis.

As best I can understand the self-contradictory picture you paint, the Arabs were what... bluffing and lying to themselves? Is blockading a country's only southern port not an act of war? Were incessant terrorist attacks not provocations to war? Was Syrian shelling of Israeli communities from the Golan Heights not an act of war?

No, since we all know in hindsight that Israel dealt the Arabs a huge defeat in '67 you use pro-Arab and leftwing revisionist accounts to claim that Israel started a war the Arabs didn't want. But the facts above prove otherwise.

You have not shown statements by Israeli leaders. I'm talking about the people who made the decisions: the PM, cabinet members, and their spokesmen. The military's job is to be prepared. If an Israeli military leader said Israel had the advantage it was as likely intended to dissuade the Arabs from their drive to war as reassure the Israeli public.

The Arab world opposed Israel's right to exist. They attacked the new country the day it was established. That conflict ended with only a cease-fire. Most of the Arab world has been at war with Israel since 1948--and still is.

Deny the facts all you want.

[elke]

Yes, the Syrians may be militarily very weak. And Egyptians. And Jordanians. And Lebanese. However, put together, they amounted to a force to be reckoned with. Why is this so hard to understand???

Along with money, oil, arms, Soviet troops potential... It is easy to see, in hindsight, with the brilliant Israeli victory in '67 and far less brilliant - but victory nevertheless, in '73, - that Arab forces were not strong enough to win. However, at the time it wasn't nearly as clear.

[michael]

Originally posted by ibrodsky

Deny the facts all you want.


Selective reading as usual. I haven't denied any of those basic points. And neither was it my purpose to do so. Only to show the fallacy of the standard story of one-sided Arab aggression and the David vs Goliath myth. Substantive facts like the IAF overflight of the Syrian capital are dismissed as inconsequential, while equal (or lesser) acts are "acts of war", when committed by Arab states. Convenient but not very convincing.

"Was Syrian shelling of Israeli communities from the Golan Heights not an act of war?"
If so, than maybe Israeli incursions in to the armistace area to "establish certain facts" was too.

"You have not shown statements by Israeli leaders"
Perhaps PM Eshkol was a streetcleaner in Tel Aviv when he threatened Syria with actions, "no les drastic than those of April 7" - ie the overflight of Damascus and shooting down of 6 MIGs.

"If an Israeli military leader said Israel had the advantage it was as likely intended to dissuade the Arabs from their drive to war as reassure the Israeli public. "
That would makes some sense for statements prior to the conflict - but many were made in 1972/73. But of course if you do believe that statemnets made in public can be for the purpose of international disuasion and domestic comfort, that can be equally true of statements by Nasser. But I know you better than that.

But no doubt, Israeli military leaders were taken in by the "pro-Arab and leftwing revisionist accounts".

Pathetic aren't they?

[Mediocrates]

According to CSIS.org, Syria spent ~8 billion ($US)/year on defense through the 1980's and mid 1990's. This translates to roughly 50% more than Israel on a year over year basis. Most of that was extended as direct aid from the Soviet Union. When the 3CP fell apart most of that aid vanished.


In fact Syria finds itself in similar straights as Iraq did in 1990 (Iraq owed billions on defaulted loans to European banks for purchasing vast numbers of Russian weapons. This made the grab for Kuwait inevitable.) Syria owes somewhere between 7-9 billion dollars to a consortium of German banks and French lenders for their purchase of a large number of Russian and PRC weapons. Moreover according to the same reports France has invested in Syria's nascent chemical weapons program and owns approx 25% of the entire petrochemical-pharmaceutical and dual use infrastructure in Syria.

You can expect Syria to become very worried and yet unable to do anything about what they've permitted to flourish in their own country. They are deeply worries that both Hezbollah and Hamas will drag them into a war with Israel yet after decades of basically ceeding the southern part of their own country to terrorist armies in order to maintain 'culpable deniability' in their quest for Israel's destruction they are at more risk themselves. Today the southern part of Syria is a run as a Hezbollah rump state under orders from Iran. This threatens to spill over into a full blown civil war to topple the Syrian govt. At the same time Hamas draws attention of the IDF. Last but not least Syria's occupation of neighboring Lebanon, is becoming very expensive even though it siphons about a billion dollars a year out of the Lebanese economy through Syrian army monopolies like cell phones and building supplies.

It seems the monster they created threatens to consume them. I'll bring the welding goggles, you bring the smores. We'll all watch it go up in a blaze.


I hope this wasn't over your head, mike.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by michael
Substantive facts like the IAF overflight of the Syrian capital are dismissed as inconsequential, while equal (or lesser) acts are "acts of war", when committed by Arab states. Convenient but not very convincing.

Be careful what you wish for. After the war of 1949 the Arab states did not curb terrorism (yes, that is before 1967!) and openly ecouraged it.

In 1951 Egyptian ambassador said: "We are using some rights of war. Ceasefire doesn't cease war." In result, Egypt has lost Sinai in 1956.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by michael
"Was Syrian shelling of Israeli communities from the Golan Heights not an act of war?"
If so, than maybe Israeli incursions in to the armistace area to "establish certain facts" was too.

"You have not shown statements by Israeli leaders"
Perhaps PM Eshkol was a streetcleaner in Tel Aviv when he threatened Syria with actions, "no les drastic than those of April 7" - ie the overflight of Damascus and shooting down of 6 MIGs.


The most worn out anti semetic trick: Confusing action with reaction. In the hidden base of this trick: The very existance of Israel legitimizes terrorism and shelling of civilians. Even before Jews dared (what a hutzpa those Jews had) to fight back and even win the six days war.

I guss most of these anti semetic creatures like michael, would be confused had we reallly copy cated Arab tactics against Arabs: purposeful carpt bombing of civilians, carbombs in mousques, massacres of Arab civilians just for the kick of it...

Their problem begins when Israel fail to act as expected: We do not fight like Arabs, and not even like Europeans or Americans.

There for, making equvialance begins to be tricky: Israeli commando assultes against military or terrorist encampments is suddenly equall with massacres of Jews... shooting down enemy MiGs, is all of the sudden equall with artillary shelling of Jewish.
civilians.

On the bottom line: this racist antisemtic creature who calls himslef "michael", tries to turn common sense upside down, by mixing Arab actions agaisnt Jewish civilians, with Israeli reaction against military and terrorist targets. Next, is the idiotic equvilance: Because Jews are fighting back, instead of being the rag any beasty European wipes his boots with, terror and massacres are legitimate. Jews do not "asume the position" fast enough, with their pants down, so mass murdering us Jews becomes "just", until Jews "lern their right place" again.

There you go brothers, simple anlesis of michael's of Anti Semitic mind set. Not even a fresh mind set I came across, just the usuall bunddle of accusations dressed in Post Modernist fasionalbe BS.

I call the moderators to ban that creature, michael. We have no more need of it.

Israel had any right in the world to attack and defeat the Arabs. Israel has any right in the world to fight for the safty of our civilians. Arabs, are equall human being, perfectly capeble of doing their own decisions. For poor or evil decisions, they will pay. Same as any crook or criminal must pay for their choises to do evil.

Michael is thereby, proven to be racist againt Arabs as well, considering them to be less human, and less responsible for their crimes. Arabs pay for their crimes by loosing all their wars against us, "Intifada" included. We are proud to be Jews and we will defend ourselves, by all means without fear or remorse. Justace is ours, and that what makes us strong.

[michael]

Gilgamesh is as informative as usual, that is, not at all.

Assertion, devoid of fact, with a liberal dose of personal invective.

Well at least this time he only wants to ban me rather than have me killed. I think G. may be mellowing.

There was an article in todays Ha'aretz which probably applies quite nicely to the fanatical Jabotinskists like Gilgamesh.

"It is much easier to claim the entire world is
against us than to admit that the State of
Israel, which rose as a refuge and source of
pride for Jews, has not only turned into a
place less Jewish and less safe for its
citizens, but has become a genuine source of
danger and a source of shameful embarrassment
to Jews who choose to live outside its borders.
Arguing it takes an anti-Semite to call the
Israeli government's policies of 2003 a danger
to world peace is a contemptible cheapening of
the term anti-Semitism."



But this is all rather off the point of terrorism. My intial reason for this little historical reverie was to look at some of the facts surrounding the great myths that are an important part of current arguments. One of the most common when discussing the possible reasons for terrorism is that the Arabs have always been bent on the destruction of Israel. '67 is the main stay - little Israel descended upon by the 5 Arab armies. Modern terrorism is simply a continuation of these vile acts- therefore discussion of 'reasons' is irrelevant.

But as the opinions of the military leaders show, it was nothing so simple. And certainly the 'David' image of Israel is laughable.

Bigoted assertions that Palestinian actions are a reflection of their "culture" and "bloodthristy nature" are more a reflection of the holder of such opinions.

To some extent, I have more sympathy with the views of Gilgamesh. He/she at least lives in Israel. One can be forgiven for extremism, to some degree, when you live with the threat of being blown to bits.

However, it's the North American (in particular) 'supporters of Israel' who are most despicable. They happily cheer on each escalation and each excess, stopping only to hurl abuse at anyone who suggests that, perhaps, this isn't the right direction. And they'll keep urging Israel ever faster in that direction, as it hurtles towards Dante's seventh level.

And if (or when IMO) it all goes pear-shaped, they are the ones who will be sitting safely in their comfortable armchairs in New York, far away from the bloodshed and mayhem.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael
Selective reading as usual. I haven't denied any of those basic points. And neither was it my purpose to do so. Only to show the fallacy of the standard story of one-sided Arab aggression and the David vs Goliath myth. Substantive facts like the IAF overflight of the Syrian capital are dismissed as inconsequential, while equal (or lesser) acts are "acts of war", when committed by Arab states. Convenient but not very convincing.

No, you are denying that the Arabs were the aggressor and that Israel was and is surrounded by far more populous states--states that echo in their schools, mosques, and media arguments used by the Nazis as they prepared to exterminate the Jews of Europe.

Basically, you try to depict every Israeli warning and action of self-defense as aggression. But reasonable people understand, after examining the facts, that it was the Arabs who were and are bent on destroying Israel--and not the other way around.

You can deny that Israel was vastly outnumbered, but it doesn't change that fact, either. Almost no one outside Israel believed Israel would survive the Arab onslaught in 1948. The Palestinians claim they must mass murder civilians because they don't have tanks and military aircraft, but in 1948 it was Israel that didn't have tanks and military aircraft.

Look at a map. Israel is surrounded by much larger countries. The population of Israel's enemies in 1967 was >>10 x Israel's population.


"Was Syrian shelling of Israeli communities from the Golan Heights not an act of war?"
If so, than maybe Israeli incursions in to the armistace area to "establish certain facts" was too.

The fact is that Syrian shelling of Israeli farming communities was unprovoked and designed to kill civilians and prevent them from making a living.

Once again, you pretend that Israel was equally guilty of incursions, but the fact is that Israel sought a settlement after the 1948 war while the Arabs simply saw themselves taking a time out.


"You have not shown statements by Israeli leaders"
Perhaps PM Eshkol was a streetcleaner in Tel Aviv when he threatened Syria with actions, "no les drastic than those of April 7" - ie the overflight of Damascus and shooting down of 6 MIGs.

I was referring to statements demonstrating that Israel sought war--not statements that Israel threatened retaliation for Arab attacks.


"If an Israeli military leader said Israel had the advantage it was as likely intended to dissuade the Arabs from their drive to war as reassure the Israeli public. "
That would makes some sense for statements prior to the conflict - but many were made in 1972/73. But of course if you do believe that statemnets made in public can be for the purpose of international disuasion and domestic comfort, that can be equally true of statements by Nasser. But I know you better than that.

No, now you are claiming that Israel threatened the Arabs in 1972 when it was the Arabs who launched a surprise attack in 1973.

You blame Israel when it launched a pre-emptive attack to help overcome the odds in 1967, and you blame Israel for trying to dissuade the Arabs who were clearly planning an attack in 1972.

To wit, you are so blinded by your hatred of Israel that you blame Israel for existing, fighting for its life, and defending Jewish children from slaughter. The Arabs obsession with destroying Israel, their ideological commitment to jihad-genocide against the Jewish people, and inability to leverage their vast numerical advantage count for nothing in your drive to depict a country less than 10 miles wide in places, and often forced to scrape its citizens flesh off sidewalks, as the neighborhood bully.


But no doubt, Israeli military leaders were taken in by the "pro-Arab and leftwing revisionist accounts".

Pathetic aren't they?

Well, it's true that Israelis debate their policies out in the open where all can see. Again, it is your irrational hatred that causes you to conclude that if an Israeli of any authority says something you find useful it must be true, but if another Israeli of equal or greater authority says the opposite they must be lying.

No reasonable person can doubt, as you do, that the Arabs have been obsessed with destroying Israel since Israel was founded, and have embraced the most profoundly evil means to achieve that goal.

In your view, as best I can understand it, Israel seeks to conquer the Middle East. But Israel gave back the Sinai. Other than temporarily halting full-scale military attacks (all the while continuing to target and kill Israeli women, children, and elderly) so they can rearm and train new troops, what concessions have the Arabs made?

You claim to be against terrorist attacks on civilians. Do you deny that Syria supports terrorism and claims groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad are engaged in "legitimate resistance"? Do you deny that Saudi Arabia funds terrorists? Do you deny that prior to this year Iraq supported terrorism? Do you deny that Iran supports terrorists? Do you deny that Egypt and several other Arab states spread viscious slanders against the Jewish people through their state-run media--slanders they know incite people to commit random acts of violence against Jews?

Please cite a credible historic account that demonstrates the Arabs did not have an overwhelming advantage in arms and manpower going into any of the Arab-Israeli wars. You can't. Those who are not blinded by hatred as you are understand that Israel has won repeatedly because (1) the Arabs were fighting for conquest, the Israelis were fighting for survival, (2) the Israeis developed superior military technology, and (3) the Israelis took the strategic advantage through intelligence and courage, and (4) the Israelis knew they were fighting an enemy that more often than not executes POWs on-the-spot, i.e., surrendering to the Arab war criminals is not an option.

[danholo]

It is a common false argument when people try to deligitimize Israel's position in the War of Independence when, by the end of the war, it was more powerful than the surrounding armies attacking it. Israel had to become more powerful and had a complete moral right to excercise its power to defend itself from a genocidal war. The Arabs can take defeats and recuperate but Israel can not afford losing to its enemies; It will be wiped out. This is why Israel needs a strong military. It's the Arabs who have attempted genocide several times and Israel has the right to defend against such aggression. It is the worst kind of turnspeak to claim otherwise.

Arab countries, even those at "peace" with Israel, wouldn't hesitate to mobilize their forces against Israel if it was weakened.

[Enuff]

Woops wrong place!!! :)

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by michael
Gilgamesh is as informative as usual, that is, not at all.
Assertion, devoid of fact, with a liberal dose of personal invective.
The "problem" is not facts. The problem is your baised and unscientific interpertaion of the facts. Taking quotes and putting them out of context, or claiming a spacific event is or isn't a cause of cetain things, is simple wrong!

I have no reason to enter your trap by copying and pasting facts that never get connected to each other. The problem is purly on the philosophical level. I, as a Zionist, believe in Jews right for land of their own, and our right for self defense. Anti semties deny us Jews our rights. Luckly, anti semites can do little about it, right now.


Well at least this time he only wants to ban me rather than have me killed. I think G. may be mellowing. Sorry about that, you were right, I forgot to mention it cause I tought it obvious. As an anti semetic you are, "michael"[complaint noted - deleted accordingly] I strogly believe similar fate must be executed up on all anti semetics like you, michael. I call it mercy killing: The mercy is for us lot, who are not racist like your kind, "michael".


There was an article in todays Ha'aretz which probably applies quite nicely to the fanatical Jabotinskists like Gilgamesh. Ha'aretz is not a "paper" any more, not according to common defenitions of press and news media, in a democratic society. Ha'aretz turned into a party bullitine, like Pravda. Ha'aretz is an over sized leaflet for various extrem fringe lunatics, of the extrem far left. Ha'aretz must never be taken seriously. There are know communists writing opinions for Ha'aretz. If you'll cut and paste their artical, would it prove anything about highly americinzed Israeli society? Ziltch! Would you expect any of us in responding to claims made by Commies, as if they are serious?

Also, I'm not going to respond to the opinion of any crazy guy who got hired by European goverments to spread self hating propaganda.

If something is printed in Ha'aretz, it doesn't make it true, and hardly never represent the main stream views in Israel. Always the extem fringe.

Quoting from Ha'aretz is EXACTLY thesame, as it I was quoting some UFO-New age magazine so to confirm any crazy fringe idea.

Ha'aretz publishers probably thinking about becomeing interEuropean paper instead of Israeli one.


But this is all rather off the point of terrorism. My intial reason for this little historical reverie was to look at some of the facts surrounding the great myths that are an important part of current arguments. One of the most common when discussing the possible reasons for terrorism is that the Arabs have always been bent on the destruction of Israel. '67 is the main stay - little Israel descended upon by the 5 Arab armies. Modern terrorism is simply a continuation of these vile acts- therefore discussion of 'reasons' is irrelevant. RIGHT! There is not myth about it. Anti semetism isn't a new thing, neither is terrorism. Finding exuses or "reasons" for Arab terrorism is little different then explaining the Jew's fault in pogroms, anti semetic persecutions or the Holocaust.

Not to every story there are two morally equal sides. The victim is not as responsible for a crime as the crimminal, and the crimminal is not blameless for his crime. By taking the responsiblity off crimminals, like Arab terrorist and European anti semites, you basicly dehumizing them.


But as the opinions of the military leaders show, it was nothing so simple. And certainly the 'David' image of Israel is laughable. Now you completly get detouched with reality. Have a nice trip, and don't come back.


Bigoted assertions that Palestinian actions are a reflection of their "culture" and "bloodthristy nature" are more a reflection of the holder of such opinions. If you choose to ignore aspects of Islamic and Arab culture, it won't make them vanish. Arabs are bloodthirsty, that's thier mindset, that's their history, thats what they get educated about, this is their culture, this is how they choose things to be. As humans, they have the right to choose. They chose evil. It is their choise. Making the choises is what making us humans, not the choise itself. A person may choose to stop being human, like some Arabs are.

Mass murder of racial basis is not what normal human beings do. Its wrong. Unexplainable. It is not a "myth". It's a fact. There are evil people, not "misunderstood people". Evil must be punished so the rest of us will not have to become evil.


To some extent, I have more sympathy with the views of Gilgamesh. He/she at least lives in Israel. One can be forgiven for extremism, to some degree, when you live with the threat of being blown to bits.

However, it's the North American (in particular) 'supporters of Israel' who are most despicable. They happily cheer on each escalation and each excess, stopping only to hurl abuse at anyone who suggests that, perhaps, this isn't the right direction. And they'll keep urging Israel ever faster in that direction, as it hurtles towards Dante's seventh level.

And if (or when IMO) it all goes pear-shaped, they are the ones who will be sitting safely in their comfortable armchairs in New York, far away from the bloodshed and mayhem. Israel is the land of all Jews, world wide. It is said so both in the declaration of indipendace as well as biblical and later texts. Israeli Jews are only the vangaurd of the whole Jewish nation. It's only a matter of time, before all Jews of the world will have voting rights for Israel's goverment.

[michael]

Originally posted by ibrodsky

now you are claiming that Israel threatened the Arabs in 1972 when it was the Arabs who launched a surprise attack in 1973.

I think you’ve misunderstood. The comments by Peled and Weizmann were made in ’73 specifically referring to ’67. Peled started it off at the lauch of a book on Israeli history. I wasn’t making any reference to the later events of ’73.




In your view, as best I can understand it, Israel seeks to conquer the Middle East. But Israel gave back the Sinai. Other than temporarily halting full-scale military attacks (all the while continuing to target and kill Israeli women, children, and elderly) so they can rearm and train new troops, what concessions have the Arabs made?

Looking at the most extreme comments(from the Nile to the Euphrates) you could argue that Israel does want to conquer the entire middle east. Equally, looking at the most extreme Arab comments (destroy Israel etc) you can draw the same conclusion. Inflammatory rhetoric doesn’t necessarily reflect reality. If you want, you can believe that these extremes represent things as they are. I don’t. So no, I don’t think that Israel wants to conquer the entire middle east, but certain elements in Israel certainly prefer an expansionist policy.

As for Arab concessions, this is far too easy. I think we can agree that in 1947 Arabs were against partition. This is hardly surprising. Any other reaction to the news that half of Palestine was being granted to a wave of European immigrants, would have been one of the most astoundingly generous reactions in human history. Clearly, Britian France or the US weren’t keen to welcome millions of Jewish immigrants after WWII. Early Palestinian opinion (el-Fatah, PLO, PFLP) were uniformly rejectionist. This didn’t begin to change until the mid to late 1970’s. By the 1980’s the PLO had committed itself to a peaceful solution in line with UN resolutions. Going back a step Egypt, under Sadat, first proposed a peace treaty with Israel in 1971. So, the Palestinians moved from a position, where they regarded the establishment of a Jewish state to represent an immoral act that deprived them of their national rights and that demanded resort to arms, to a recognition of equal rights under the guise of a 2 state solution. No small concession.




You claim to be against terrorist attacks on civilians. Do you deny that Syria supports terrorism and claims groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad are engaged in "legitimate resistance"? Do you deny that Saudi Arabia funds terrorists? Do you deny that prior to this year Iraq supported terrorism? Do you deny that Iran supports terrorists? Do you deny that Egypt and several other Arab states spread viscious slanders against the Jewish people through their state-run media--slanders they know incite people to commit random acts of violence against Jews?

No denial. Those things are broadly true. Regarding Hamas and Islamic Jihad, they do engage in legitimate resistance (eg Netzarim), but also in terrorism.

However, exactly the same claims can be made against Israel – early funding of Hamas, targeting of civilians, vicious slander against Arabs (“Araboushim”, “two-legged beasts” in Begins’ immortal phrase and “they must not raise their heads” etc), collective punishments in violation of the Geneva Convention etc.

But again, I think all these are wrong, while you seem to have an endless list of excuses that justify these crimes, but only for one side.




Please cite a credible historic account that demonstrates the Arabs did not have an overwhelming advantage in arms and manpower going into any of the Arab-Israeli wars.

When Matti Peled made his comments stating exactly that, he was Lecturer in Middle East History at the University of Tel Aviv.

Though I know what you mean by “credible” – an opinion you agree with.

Call me crazy, but I’m still firmly attached to the notion that the Israeli military leaders involved in the '67 conflict, represent a “credible” opinion on the subject.

[michael]

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

Sorry about that, you were right, I forgot to mention it cause I tought it obvious. As an anti semetic you are, "michael"[complaint noted - deleted accordingly] I strogly believe similar fate must be executed up on all anti semetics like you, michael. I call it mercy killing: The mercy is for us lot, who are not racist like your kind, "michael".


I made no "complaint". I'm quite happy for Gilgameshs' posts to left in their un-moderated glory. In fact, so much the better, that people can see for themselves the bigotry and hate that dominates the extreme right.

It's no wonder that Ben-Gurion was so concerned about the revisionists, that he called Jabotinsky the "fascist Satan".




Israel is the land of all Jews, world wide. It is said so both in the declaration of indipendace as well as biblical and later texts. Israeli Jews are only the vangaurd of the whole Jewish nation. It's only a matter of time, before all Jews of the world will have voting rights for Israel's goverment.


Jewish people already have a kind of voting right with regard to Israel. It's called voting with your feet, and the majority are staying away. Don't more Jews live in the US than Israel?

Israel will never be the nation-state of all Jews. A homeland - definitely. But the idea of the ethno-religous nation state died last century. Zionism seems to be an anachronism.

Continued delusions of divine right to the land, lead to bizarre situations like the settlements in Gaza.

And what's with the "michael"??

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael
I think you’ve misunderstood. The comments by Peled and Weizmann were made in ’73 specifically referring to ’67. Peled started it off at the lauch of a book on Israeli history. I wasn’t making any reference to the later events of ’73.

Your arguments are based on a logical fallacy: appeal to authority. You assume that if an Israeli of any note says something supporting your case it must be true. You ignore the fact that Arab governments suppress comments that deviate from the official line. And you quote Israelis making controversial statements to sell books.


Looking at the most extreme comments(from the Nile to the Euphrates) you could argue that Israel does want to conquer the entire middle east. Equally, looking at the most extreme Arab comments (destroy Israel etc) you can draw the same conclusion. Inflammatory rhetoric doesn’t necessarily reflect reality. If you want, you can believe that these extremes represent things as they are. I don’t. So no, I don’t think that Israel wants to conquer the entire middle east, but certain elements in Israel certainly prefer an expansionist policy.

No, the fact that inflammatory rhetoric is heard from both sides does not suggest the Arab position is moderate. The inflammatory rhetoric from the Israeli side comes mainly from private individuals or individuals speaking out of place. The inflammatory rhetoric from the Arab side comes straight from the dictators and government-controlled media.

You are so biased that you refuse to believe what the Arab side has insisted for decades. To this day, only two ME Arab states recognize Israel: Egypt and Jordan. In the case of Egypt, such recognition was granted as a last resort to get the Sinai back; the Egyptian government continues to incite violence against Israel and Jews. We all know that little if anything is done on the Egyptian side to stop weapons being smuggled into Gaza. Plus, about two years ago the Egyptian FM publicly suggested that Arabs should not assume they would be defeated if they launched another war with Israel. As for Jordan, the Western-educated King is at peace with Israel, but most of his subjects are not.

Countries such as Syria openly support terrorist groups that even some of Israel's harshest critics concede are guilty of war crimes.


As for Arab concessions, this is far too easy. I think we can agree that in 1947 Arabs were against partition. This is hardly surprising. Any other reaction to the news that half of Palestine was being granted to a wave of European immigrants, would have been one of the most astoundingly generous reactions in human history. Clearly, Britian France or the US weren’t keen to welcome millions of Jewish immigrants after WWII. Early Palestinian opinion (el-Fatah, PLO, PFLP) were uniformly rejectionist. This didn’t begin to change until the mid to late 1970’s. By the 1980’s the PLO had committed itself to a peaceful solution in line with UN resolutions. Going back a step Egypt, under Sadat, first proposed a peace treaty with Israel in 1971. So, the Palestinians moved from a position, where they regarded the establishment of a Jewish state to represent an immoral act that deprived them of their national rights and that demanded resort to arms, to a recognition of equal rights under the guise of a 2 state solution. No small concession.

We can agree that in 1947 the Arabs demanded sovereignty over land in which they were the majority and land in which they were the minority. The assumption that all of Palestine belonged to the Arabs is simply a product of your bias.

As I've pointed out many times, Jews have been the majority in Jerusalem for 150+ years.

The Arabs did not rule Palestine. It was ruled by the British and the Turks before them.

The Arabs did not own most of the land. 80% of Palestine was owned by the state.

Jews had as much right to immigrate to Palestine as Arabs did. Before the European Jews arrived, Palestine was sparsely populated, and many of the Arabs who lived in Palestine were nomads.

The Palestinians accepted Israel's right to exist in English when speaking to the West. But in Arabic, when speaking to their own people, the line has always been that Israel must be destroyed. The only disagreement has been whether it should be done in stages or at once.


No denial. Those things are broadly true. Regarding Hamas and Islamic Jihad, they do engage in legitimate resistance (eg Netzarim), but also in terrorism.

No, this is just doubletalk. Hamas and Islamic Jihad favor killing Jews wherever and whenever possible. They would love to kill both Israeli soldiers and Jewish civilians, but they have had most success killing the defenseless.

Of course, I'm not surprised that it comes out you support these racist mass murderers. Your cowardly attempt to pretend there is a "legitimate" side to these bloodthirsty barbarians does not fool anyone here.


However, exactly the same claims can be made against Israel – early funding of Hamas, targeting of civilians, vicious slander against Arabs (“Araboushim”, “two-legged beasts” in Begins’ immortal phrase and “they must not raise their heads” etc), collective punishments in violation of the Geneva Convention etc.

More lies. Naturally, some Israelis respond to barbaric attacks by likening the Arabs to animals. But this is not what is generally taught in Israeli schools, synagogues, and media.

However, the evidence that Arabs teach their children to hate Jews is overwhelming. It fills their textbooks, newspapers, and airwaves.


But again, I think all these are wrong, while you seem to have an endless list of excuses that justify these crimes, but only for one side.

Nonsense. You voice support for racist mass murderers and then accuse me of excusing crimes. You are blinded by prejudice and are a shameless liar.



When Matti Peled made his comments stating exactly that, he was Lecturer in Middle East History at the University of Tel Aviv.

Logical fallacy: appeal to authority. Was he the only lecturer on ME history in Israel? Did all other lecturers agree with him? You make excuses for racist mass murderers but immediately accept Peled's view because... it suits your mean-spirited purposes.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by michael
It's no wonder that Ben-Gurion was so concerned about the revisionists, that he called Jabotinsky the "fascist Satan". It's Begin, no other, who was first to sign "peace" treaty with Egypt, and conceaded half of the land of Israel for that purpose. The same Begin who followed David Razi'el as leader of the Etzel. The same Begin who was the "facist Satan" Jabotinsky's greates deciple.

Jabotinsky's party is the Likud, israel's ruling party. Sharon's party. My party. One in three Israelis voted for the Likud. Two of three Israelis voted for some other party, likud included who hold many of Jabotinsky Ideas.

Jabotinsky ideas rule Israel. You can have a quarrle with Jabotinsky without haveing quarrle of the rest of us Jews.

Togather with other parties of the Knesset who share Jabotisnky's ideas of self defence, Jabotinsky's ideology voted for by 45%!!!

Shinui isn't left party, on economic issues, it stands RIGHT to the Likud. Shinui won 15 seats, 12.5% of the voters.

Orthodox religious partys won 16 seats: 13% of the voters.

Labor, only half of it is anti zionist: won 19 seats: 16% of the voters.

Anti zionist parties: Meretz, the communists and the Arab Islamists, the the "Democratic alliance" which is Israel's Ba'ath branch, all togahter, won 14 seats all togather. 11% of the voters.

Bottom line: Anti Zionist Left and Labour, all togather got only 27%.

Likud alone: 34%. Right wing over all: 73% !!!

The people your opinions you like to quote, are no way even close in represting the Jewish Israelis. Israelis are Zionists and Jabotinskyists. (or religious orthodox). You can't make a speretion any more, between the two. Israel is Jabotinskyst!!!


Jewish people already have a kind of voting right with regard to Israel. It's called voting with your feet, and the majority are staying away. Don't more Jews live in the US than Israel? Last figures I got, there are as many Jews in the US as in Israel.

Ten year since Israel was restored, only 20% of world Jews lived in Israel. Now, it's 50%. The over all derivitive (incliniation) is positive. More Jews are immigrating every year.

So your interpertaion of data is quite skewed.


Israel will never be the nation-state of all Jews. A homeland - definitely. But the idea of the ethno-religous nation state died last century. Zionism seems to be an anachronism.

Continued delusions of divine right to the land, lead to bizarre situations like the settlements in Gaza.

And what's with the "michael"?? You are wrong "michael". Israel is already one! Israel is already a nation-state of ethnic Jews, and will remain that way thousands of years after all the world you know today will be upside down seventy seven times. :D :D :D

the pretty thing is, that other then whining or spreading anti zionist and anti semetic propaganda, there is nothing really you can do about it!!! Israel is, and will be a Zionist Jewish nation sate. This is the will of the real Jewish people. (apart of few paid for fringe left extremists and communists who tend to write in Ha'aretz).

Divine right isn't center in Jabotinskys writings. Jabotinsky's Zionism is based on cultural and historical and humanitarian rights Jews have, through culture and brith right, to the land of Israel. Jabotinsky wasn't religious at all! So were most of his men! The Likud was never a religious part

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by michael
It's no wonder that Ben-Gurion was so concerned about the revisionists, that he called Jabotinsky the "fascist Satan". It's Begin, no other, who was first to sign "peace" treaty with Egypt, and conceaded half of the land of Israel for that purpose. The same Begin who followed David Razi'el as leader of the Etzel. The same Begin who was the "facist Satan" Jabotinsky's greates deciple.

Jabotinsky's party is the Likud, israel's ruling party. Sharon's party. My party. One in three Israelis voted for the Likud. Two of three Israelis voted for some other party, likud included who hold many of Jabotinsky Ideas.

Jabotinsky ideas rule Israel. You can have a quarrle with Jabotinsky without haveing quarrle of the rest of us Jews.

Togather with other parties of the Knesset who share Jabotisnky's ideas of self defence, Jabotinsky's ideology voted for by 45%!!!

Shinui isn't left party, on economic issues, it stands RIGHT to the Likud. Shinui won 15 seats, 12.5% of the voters.

Orthodox religious partys won 16 seats: 13% of the voters.

Labor, only half of it is anti zionist: won 19 seats: 16% of the voters.

Anti zionist parties: Meretz, the communists and the Arab Islamists, the the "Democratic alliance" which is Israel's Ba'ath branch, all togahter, won 14 seats all togather. 11% of the voters.

Bottom line: Anti Zionist Left and Labour, all togather got only 27%.

Likud alone: 34%. Right wing over all: 73% !!!

The people your opinions you like to quote, are no way even close in represting the Jewish Israelis. Israelis are Zionists and Jabotinskyists. (or religious orthodox). You can't make a speretion any more, between the two. Israel is Jabotinskyst!!!


Jewish people already have a kind of voting right with regard to Israel. It's called voting with your feet, and the majority are staying away. Don't more Jews live in the US than Israel? Last figures I got, there are as many Jews in the US as in Israel.

Ten year since Israel was restored, only 20% of world Jews lived in Israel. Now, it's 50%. The over all derivitive (incliniation) is positive. More Jews are immigrating every year.

So your interpertaion of data is quite skewed.


Israel will never be the nation-state of all Jews. A homeland - definitely. But the idea of the ethno-religous nation state died last century. Zionism seems to be an anachronism.

Continued delusions of divine right to the land, lead to bizarre situations like the settlements in Gaza.

And what's with the "michael"?? You are wrong "michael". Israel is already one! Israel is already a nation-state of ethnic Jews, and will remain that way thousands of years after all the world you know today will be upside down seventy seven times. :D :D :D

the pretty thing is, that other then whining or spreading anti zionist and anti semetic propaganda, there is nothing really you can do about it!!! Israel is, and will be a Zionist Jewish nation sate. This is the will of the real Jewish people. (apart of few paid for fringe left extremists and communists who tend to write in Ha'aretz).

Divine right isn't center in Jabotinskys writings. Jabotinsky's Zionism is based on cultural and historical and humanitarian rights Jews have, through culture and brith right, to the land of Israel. Jabotinsky wasn't religious at all! So were most of his men! The Likud was never a religious party!!!

Lastly, about anachronism: We out lived every one, we will out live the Arabs, the Euros and all the rest. Jews are not anachronistic. We are etrnal. We live outside time or history. We are the first, who are still alive today, and we will be the last humans on the face of this earth.

[michael]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Your arguments are based on a logical fallacy: appeal to authority. You assume that if an Israeli of any note says something supporting your case it must be true. ......And you quote Israelis making controversial statements to sell books.

"Logical fallacy" is getting a workout today isn't it? But speaking of 'LF' here's another- your arguement is true, but only when my belief in Peled's arguement is simply because of his position of authority and for no other reason.

But of course there is another reason- that when it comes to commenting on the relative strength of enemy forces a military commander is well-placed to do so. Not because of abstract authority, but because that authority places him in a position of knowledge. You failure to understand this is your own 'LF'.



Nonsense. You voice support for racist mass murderers and then accuse me of excusing crimes. You are blinded by prejudice and are a shameless liar.

What a heinous individual I am. Perhaps you could share with the rest of us my support for "racist mass murders". Or is this another case, as I suspect, of your rather creative talent for reading between the lines?



Logical fallacy: appeal to authority. Was he the only lecturer on ME history in Israel? Did all other lecturers agree with him? You make excuses for racist mass murderers but immediately accept Peled's view because... it suits your mean-spirited purposes.


Hello LF!

A little reminder. You requested that I "cite a credible...". 'A" denotes the singular in my version of English.

Would you prefer a literature review of all Israeli lecturers on ME history? Beyond my meagre resources I'm afraid.

But just to go over the same old tired ground - Peled and the head of the IAF Weizmann were in a rather good position to make the judgements that they explained in public. More a matter of a highly credible opinion rather than of my "meanspirited purpose".

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael


What a heinous individual I am. Perhaps you could share with the rest of us my support for "racist mass murders". Or is this another case, as I suspect, of your rather creative talent for reading between the lines?

No, I don't need to read between the lines. You have said that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are also engaged in "legitimate resistance." The only example you given so far is the attack on Netzarim in which a woman IDF soldier who had been ordered to turn in her weapon was killed at point blank range as she slept. You pretend this is "legitimate resistance," but it is morally little better than executing prisoners of war.

Even if you could find better examples of "legitimate resistance," that would not change the fact that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are mass murder gangs that purposely target Isreali women, children, and elderly. That is the centerpiece of their strategy. It is what they are best known for. It is what they brag about.

The real issue is these groups make no effort to distinguish between armed soldiers, unarmed soldiers, and defenseless civilians. You dishonestly suggest these groups are pursuing two distinct programs, one "legitimate" and the other not, but this is a lie.


Hello LF!

A little reminder. You requested that I "cite a credible...". 'A" denotes the singular in my version of English.

Would you prefer a literature review of all Israeli lecturers on ME history? Beyond my meagre resources I'm afraid.

But just to go over the same old tired ground - Peled and the head of the IAF Weizmann were in a rather good position to make the judgements that they explained in public. More a matter of a highly credible opinion rather than of my "meanspirited purpose".

No, I'm pointing out that you automatically consider sources supporting your claims credible, but when there are conflicting claims a critical assessment of evidence is an absolute necessity.

Many of your sources are Israeli or Jewish writers who base their claims on private papers and hearsay. These private papers are not readily accessible to the public, so it is difficult to determine what may be taken out of context or misquoted. Writers such as Israel Shahak have been caught misquoting the Talmud, however, and there is reason to believe the "private papers" are similarly being distorted. These writers rely on "private papers" precisely because they know it is more difficult to challenge such claims.

But it doesn't matter. What really matters is what Israeli leaders did--not what they allegedly thought. The claim that Israeli leaders have secretly wanted to provoke the poor, peace-loving Arabs to war so they could conquer, rape, and plunder the Arabs is just a cheap smear tactic. You might as well claim you can read minds and that deep down inside every Zionist would like to mass murder Arab children. It's a neat way to deflect attention from the *fact* that the Arabs have been massacring Jewish civilians, quite intentionally, for the past 75 years.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by michael

What a heinous individual I am. Perhaps you could share with the rest of us my support for "racist mass murders". Or is this another case, as I suspect, of your rather creative talent for reading between the lines?

No Need. Most of us have been here long enough to remember what you've said. The rest can use the "search".

[michael]

Originally posted by ibrodsky

Even if you could find better examples of "legitimate resistance," that would not change the fact that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are mass murder gangs that purposely target Isreali women, children, and elderly. That is the centerpiece of their strategy. It is what they are best known for. It is what they brag about.

Yes, Ein Yabroud would be a 'better' example.

But if the killing of civilians in much greater numbers than 'legitimate' targets delegitimises all actions, this leads to some extremely interesting conclusions.

"But it turned out that according to calculations
of the Shin Bet and by its own definitions, of
the 2,341 Palestinians who were killed up to
the beginning of August this year, 551 were
terrorists"
"Here are the disastrous proportions, in the hope
that someone in Israel will take notice: 80
percent of the Palestinians killed were not
connected to armed actions" (Ha'aretz- 8/9/03)

So if, as Shin Bet claim, the IDF predominately kills civilians, it must be a "mass murder gang"?




The claim that Israeli leaders have secretly wanted to provoke the poor, peace-loving Arabs to war so they could conquer, rape, and plunder the Arabs is just a cheap smear tactic.


Yes, if I had made that claim, as you imply, I would be guilty of "cheap smear".

I understand how tempting it is to attribute to me, arguments that you wish I would make, but it's rather unedifying.

[michael]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by minusthejihad
No Need. Most of us have been here long enough to remember what you've said. The rest can use the "search". [/QUOTE

Please do so, and post the results. But I can tell you in advance what you'll have to show - nothing. But best of luck.

[Gilgamesh]

Perfect example of figures taken out of context.


Originally posted by michael
Yes, Ein Yabroud would be a 'better' example.

But if the killing of civilians in much greater numbers than 'legitimate' targets delegitimises all actions, this leads to some extremely interesting conclusions.

"But it turned out that according to calculations
of the Shin Bet and by its own definitions, of
the 2,341 Palestinians who were killed up to
the beginning of August this year, 551 were
terrorists"
"Here are the disastrous proportions, in the hope
that someone in Israel will take notice: 80
percent of the Palestinians killed were not
connected to armed actions" (Ha'aretz- 8/9/03)

So if, as Shin Bet claim, the IDF predominately kills civilians, it must be a "mass murder gang"?

Leftics like to play with the defenitions of terrorists.

Is a terrorist is ONLY a member of clear cut and defined terrorist gang? Most terrorist, belong to several organizations, or murder Jews in service of the highest bidder, or act as local militias grunts.

Some are "ordinary civilians" unofficaly affiliated, who take pot shots at our soldiers and get killed. Some are "civilians" who throw rocks, breaks, iron bars, grandes, molotovs, explosives or even refrigirators from roof tops at out soldiers, and get killed in the process. Do such "civilians" make it into the statistics as terrorists? Sadly, not always, since adopting proper logical defenition might discredit most of the Left accusations.

IDF should, and it doesn't, kill whoever endanger our civilians and soldiers, what ever his weapon is.
IDF command must understand that stones are weapons too, stones kill. This understanding hadn't sinked in yet.


Arabs still attack our troops not because they are "ideologicaly" motivated, but because they know it absolutly safe.

We all accept there is not resemblance between the Israeli or American "occuaption" and "oppression", to the brutality of the Arab ragimes. Yet, in Egypt or Syria no arab dared to throw rocks at soldiers, let alone spoil a propaganda poster. Think why!

Resisting Egyption tyrrany is quite dangerus, an Arab might get killed. However, attacking Israelis or Americans... is totally safe (in relative matters).

Had the IDF been half as brutal as it is accused to be, there was no intefada, no terror and no Oslo process.

Better, more reliable statistics can be found in this link. (http://www.ict.org.il/) goto "databases", click "arab israeli conflict".

[michael]

As my post said the figures belong to Shin Bet.

And, again, the definitions were Shin Bet's.

Afraid you'll have to take it up with them. I'm sure they'll be amused to be categorised as "leftics" (leftists is what I assume you meant?)

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by michael
As my post said the figures belong to Shin Bet.

And, again, the definitions were Shin Bet's.

Afraid you'll have to take it up with them. I'm sure they'll be amused to be categorised as "leftics" (leftists is what I assume you meant?)

Lastly, the figures may be correct, but the interpertation of the figures where made by unknown writer persumbly of Ha'haretz.
In other words, it's quite obvious that both you "michael" and the writer in Ha'aretz, have taken good data totally out of context.

[Mediocrates]

Terrorism works because people like michael the world over want it to work. While they don't actively participate it or perform it they rationalize it, justify it and blame its victims. Terrorism could not thrive given its own limited tools if the michaels of the world weren't whitewashing it front and center 24/7. They are its 'shareholders'. They are the real enemy.

[Gilgamesh]

The "michaels of the world" can only demonstaret again, how part of the world hates us, Jews.

The fact terrorism persists, world over, is only because we, as a democratic and "moral" western societies, constantly refuese to do all that it takes, to uproot terrorism.

False misconception of the defenition of morality and Justiace, is what prevent us to fight terrorism in iron gauntlets. We are too soft with our enemies.

We cannot blame terrorism upon the "michaels", who are terror supporters. We should blame our own people who follow ideas such as michaels, and promote the false defenitions of morality and justiace, in regared to the war on terror.

[humus_sapiens]

...
And your main example of this "success" is Palestinian terrorism?

Well, that's the one that's worked. You can't think about terrorism without thinking about Palestinian terrorism. Palestinians began international terrorism. It started with them in 1968. They used it as the first resort, not the last resort. They invented it, they perfected it, they benefited from it and they taught the world how to use it and that it would be successful.


But how has it actually been successful? What have the Palestinians really gained? They don't have a state.

I'll give you an example. I gave a speech the other night in front of 500 people. I asked the people how many of them favored a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel. I think every person in the audience raised their hand. Then I asked how many people favor a Kurdish state. People looked at me like I was crazy. Then I asked how many people favored an Armenian state inside of Turkey. Same thing. Then I asked how many people favor an independent Tibet? A few hands went up. How many people favor an independent Basque state? How many people favor a Chechen state? People didn't know what I was talking about. Everybody knows of the plight of the Palestinian people. And yet when you put the Palestinian situation in comparison to, say, the Kurds, the Tibetans and the Armenians, those claims are certainly no greater. In fact, they're probably considerably lower; the Tibetans have been under occupation for a far longer time period, there are many, many more of them, and they've never been offered a state. The Palestinians were offered a state in 1948 and they turned it down. They could have had a state between 1948 and 1967 and they turned it down. They were offered a state at Camp David and they turned it down.

So when you do any kind of a moral comparison, you ask yourself, why has the Palestinian cause leapfrogged over all other causes? Why has the pope met with Arafat seven times and never met with a Kurdish leader or an Armenian leader? It's a reflection of the success of Palestinian terrorism. Now, that doesn't mean that it's the only way of achieving success; my own personal view is that the Palestinians would have actually achieved a state had they engaged in civil disobedience, Martin Luther King-like. But they opted for the tactic of terrorism and for them it has worked. In the book, I quote Palestinian leaders who say that they were surprised at how well it worked.


Is any kind of violence used by the Palestinians morally acceptable in your view?

Not against civilians, no. It's never acceptable to target civilians. It violates the Geneva Accords, it violates the international law of war and it violates all principles of morality. The idea of blowing up an American student at a cafeteria or an Israeli child in a day school is morally unacceptable. That's why we have soldiers. If they want to attack soldiers, that's a war.


So there is a difference between Palestinians attacking civilians and attacking soldiers?

Yes, I don't think they're justified in attacking soldiers either. But they are certainly not justified under any circumstance in attacking civilians.


In that case, do you think that terrorism can be viewed as "asymmetrical warfare"?

It's not asymmetrical warfare. Asymmetrical warfare is a euphemism for terrorism, just like collateral damage is a euphemism for killing innocent civilians. There's no such thing as asymmetrical warfare when you're targeting civilians. It's never justified and that's what we have to teach the world. Otherwise, anybody can talk about asymmetrical warfare. Let me put it this way: If Palestinian terrorism against civilians is justified, so is al-Qaida terrorism against the World Trade Center. There is no difference.


So can violence used by any colonized or oppressed group against its oppressors be justified?

No, we wouldn't justify African-Americans using violence against us in the 1950s. There are a hundred groups in the world that think they're colonized. Why do the Palestinians think that they're the only group that has the right to use terrorism? And remember: The Palestinians were offered a state in 1948 and they turned it down and engaged in terrorism. They slaughtered bunches of doctors and nurses on the way to Hadassah hospital instead of accepting a state which would have been twice as large as Israel. They had a state anytime they wanted between 1948 and 1967. They were offered a state in 2000. It's nonsense to think that they're a colonized country. They're a country that has used terrorism simply as an alternative to diplomacy. The Tibetans are a colonized people, the Kurds are a colonized people, the Armenians are a colonized people. If you had to rank the Palestinian case for statehood, it ranks 30th or 40th. It's a three on a scale of 10.
...


Read on at http://www.salon.com/books/int/2002/09/12/dershowitz/

[humus_sapiens]

Part 2. It's really good.


How should the international community have reacted to Palestinian terrorism? Should they never have negotiated with the Palestinians, despite their suffering and despite legitimate claims?

Start in the beginning. It's very simple how they should have reacted. The cause should have been set back, not pushed forward. They should have been kept out of the United Nations, the way the Kurds and the other groups were kept out. Look what happened just the other day. The Basque Party was kicked out of the Parliament in Spain as punishment because the Parliament believes that the Basque Party uses terrorism to further their ends. That is a very effective tactic: You use terrorism, you are not part of the political system.

You never, ever push their cause forward, and that's what we've done. The message that seems to have been sent after, particularly, Munich is "My God, they're willing to kill so many innocent people, they must have one hell of a cause." And that's a complete non sequitur. The Jews who were subject to the Holocaust didn't try to terrorize German babies or children; the French underground was very careful in who they directed their attacks at. There's a famous story about Russian revolutionaries who refused to throw a bomb because a child was in the car. But Palestinian terrorism has been promiscuous, going after the softest targets. Instead of saying that this is a cause that shows us that they deserve to be set back for using terrorism, we push them forward.


A lot of people would argue that, especially recently, Israel does retaliate. Israel punishes the Palestinians for their terrorist acts -- they demolish someone's home, they target specific terrorists, they shut down cities. But it hasn't stopped the violence at all. In fact, it's gotten worse.

I agree with that. That's not a particularly effective way of dealing with it.


So what are they doing wrong?

Israel doesn't have a lot of options. It's not the international community. Palestinian terrorism has to be stopped by the European community but because the European community hasn't done that, Israel is forced into a position where it has to retaliate. Israel always overreacts. Every democracy overreacts to terrorism. That's part of the ploy of terrorism.

Think about what happened after the Camp David accords failed. The Palestinians had been offered 93 percent or something of what they wanted and they turned it down and they were actually looked at very negatively by the European community. So they decided to play the terrorist card again. What happened? You blow up a couple of Israeli children and Israel's going to overreact. As soon as Israel overreacts, the European community hates Israel and begins to love the Palestinians. They're able to change the dynamic very quickly by using a tactic -- terrorism -- which they know will cause a democracy to overreact. The United States overreacts, Israel overreacts, Britain overreacts, Canada overreacted in 1970 -- you can always count on a democracy overreacting to terrorism and thereby getting the moral low ground in the world community because the world community then says it's a "cycle of violence." And they create this metaphor of moral equivalence.

I have to tell you the worst offender of moral equivalence has been the Vatican, which simply fails to understand the difference between democracies that fight back against terrorism and terrorists who target babies and children. I just can't imagine the pope, who met seven times with Arafat, being willing to meet seven times with other killers. It's sent a message: You can kill, you can blow up airplanes and you will still be greeted by the man who's supposed to represent the greatest international morality in the world.


It seems that the moral equivalence stems from the fact that Israel does kill civilians. Israel has an army, the Palestinians do not. More Palestinians have died.

Inevitably, but look. Compare what Jordan did: In one month, it murdered 20,000 Palestinians. Israel, in 55 years of fighting the Palestinians, has killed a tiny fraction of that 20,000, much of it in warfare, many of them guilty. The number of civilians killed by Israel is probably the smallest of any country in the modern world. Compare the number of civilians that Israel killed with the number of civilians the United States killed in Vietnam. Compare it to the number the United States killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Compare it with the number that the British killed in the firebombing in Dresden. No country has ever fought a war, certainly in modern times, where fewer civilians have been killed. Israel has never, for example, bombed a city. It always sends in its troops to do it retail, like in Jenin, where 23 Israeli soldiers were killed, along with 50 or 60 Palestinians. When the police fight criminals, you certainly don't expect equivalence. You don't expect one policeman to be killed for every criminal. You expect that there would be a much, much higher rate of death among the criminals than there is among the policeman.

Now, I'm not defending Israel in everything it's done, obviously. It has overreacted. I was very much against sending that bomb to kill the terrorist in Gaza, which resulted in 14 innocent people being killed. It should never have been done. The first to say that was the Israeli government, which condemned the activity and had an investigation. It's terrible when a young child is killed in a crossfire. But when that happened, everybody in Israel, and most Americans, were crying. When a kid is deliberately killed in Israel, Palestinians cheer. That's a big difference morally. You can't have a moral equivalence there, and I think that's what causes terrorism. The moral success of Palestinian terrorism is what led Osama bin Laden to calculate that he will get tremendous support around the world for Sept. 11.
...