60% of israeli's want to dismantle settlements, more favor a Palestinian state.

[takeo]

According to a poll conducted by the Tel Aviv university 60% of the surveyed Israeli's want to dismantle the settlements and around two thirths of them favors a Palestinian state.

www.jpost.com

[Oh Jerusalem]

Yes. That's why we have this thread (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=4437).

[Mediocrates]

As a strategy though tak, "let's erase all the Jews from Yesha" seems to lack depth.

I wonder in your perfect Jew Free Palistan day 2, after all the Jews have been relocated to the west......then what? Erect a Palistanian wall to keep them all out forever or simply outlaw them from ever setting foot in Palistan?

[Mediocrates]

One thing I guess that's never occurred to the takeoians is that Palistan might be served in the end by keeping and working with the 9% most productive sector of their populace. But as we know standard takeoian thought is not about success, it's about rhetoric, it's about racism, it's about failure. It's about doing less and sitting is squalor surrounded by violence forever until there are no more Jews. Then Takeoistan-Palistan can become like Poland (or the entire arab world for that matter), with some of the most virulent and public antisemitic raving in the world, and yet......no Jews.


I suggest putting this in Arabic on the Palistanian flag:


We used to have fire, but the inventor 'died'

[eyl]

This is supposed to be news?

The majority of Israelis have supported dismantling the more isolated settlements and a two-state solution for years (which, frankly, I've pointed out to you before); the differences of opinion are on the terms. Like all polls, the wording of the questions, which weren't given, is significant.

Incidently, I assume you were talking about this poll (though it's several months old):

http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/jp1006.htm

In future, when linking to articles, I suggest you link directly to the article rather than the main page of the site; articles tend to age off.

Originally posted by takeo
According to a poll conducted by the Tel Aviv university 60% of the surveyed Israeli's want to dismantle the settlements and around two thirths of them favors a Palestinian state.

www.jpost.com

[takeo]

As a strategy though tak, "let's erase all the Jews from Yesha" seems to lack depth.

I wonder in your perfect Jew Free Palistan day 2, after all the Jews have been relocated to the west......then what? Erect a Palistanian wall to keep them all out forever or simply outlaw them from ever setting foot in Palistan?

no, of course not, devellop friendly neighbourly relations on equal terms. i know it won't be easy and will take a lot of time, but there's no alternative.


One thing I guess that's never occurred to the takeoians is that Palistan might be served in the end by keeping and working with the 9% most productive sector of their populace. But as we know standard takeoian thought is not about success, it's about rhetoric, it's about racism, it's about failure. It's about doing less and sitting is squalor surrounded by violence forever until there are no more Jews. Then Takeoistan-Palistan can become like Poland (or the entire arab world for that matter), with some of the most virulent and public antisemitic raving in the world, and yet......no Jews.

the problem isn't that they are Jews, the problem is that they came there as colonisers under protection of an occupying nation, that's why they have to leave. For the israeli public the occupied territories means nothing but trouble and it isn't even a part of Israel, of the Jewish state, so why invest money, lifes and resources in it?
perhaps the settlers don't have to leave and can come to some kind of "modus vivendi" with the palestinians, but this can only happen if they accept the palestinians as equals and accept palestinian law.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by takeo
For the israeli public the occupied territories means nothing but trouble and it isn't even a part of Israel, of the Jewish state, so why invest money, lifes and resources in it?


The occupied territories ARE a part of Israel and the Jewish Homeland, and although they may be sacrificed for peace, never forget they were and are called Judea and Samaria.


Originally posted by takeo
accept palestinian law.

LOL, "Palestinian Law" OXYMORON ALERT!

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by takeo
no, of course not, devellop friendly neighbourly relations on equal terms. i know it won't be easy and will take a lot of time, but there's no alternative.




the problem isn't that they are Jews, the problem is that they came there as colonisers under protection of an occupying nation, that's why they have to leave. For the israeli public the occupied territories means nothing but trouble and it isn't even a part of Israel, of the Jewish state, so why invest money, lifes and resources in it?
perhaps the settlers don't have to leave and can come to some kind of "modus vivendi" with the palestinians, but this can only happen if they accept the palestinians as equals and accept palestinian law.

So an Israeli Free Palistan then, as long as they're Jews you're talking about. Because I'm more than 100% sure you'd stand behind dual citizenship for arabs only.

Accept Palistinian law? You mean the one where they're all supposed to die or convert or sprout wings or pay blood money to be permitted to live?

No, what's good for goose....once you leave you're gone for good.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Yes. That's why we have this thread (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=4437).

lol

[Mil]

Posted by Takeo:

no, of course not, devellop friendly neighbourly relations on equal terms. i know it won't be easy and will take a lot of time, but there's no alternative.


You are so naive. After the creation of a Palestinian state the relationship between the two countries would be very minimal. Of course unless Palestine would become a full-pledge Democracy. There is a reason why Israel does not have a single serious relationship with anyone of its neighbors as the explanation of why Arabs don't have much of a relationship with each other. The only two full-pledged Democracies in the region - Israel and Turkey - somehow enjoy a full normal relationship and by far the strongest diplomatic bilateral ties in the region.

And no, peace between Israel, Egypt and Jordan is not much of a peace but a rather a status-quo upheld by a third party. Do you know what that third party is?

[takeo]

This is supposed to be news?

The majority of Israelis have supported dismantling the more isolated settlements and a two-state solution for years (which, frankly, I've pointed out to you before); the differences of opinion are on the terms. Like all polls, the wording of the questions, which weren't given, is significant.

Incidently, I assume you were talking about this poll (though it's several months old):

http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/jp1006.htm

In future, when linking to articles, I suggest you link directly to the article rather than the main page of the site; articles tend to age off.

OK, you're right, but when i came across this news i couldn't resist to post it. For example Newsguy said recently (as well as others) that they represent the opinion of the majority of the Israeli people. Clearly not...




The occupied territories ARE a part of Israel and the Jewish Homeland, and although they may be sacrificed for peace, never forget they were and are called Judea and Samaria.

that's not how the majority of israeli's think about it, neither does the international community, the UN, even the US.........
Eretz Israel is a project of a few ideological hardliners who are ready to sacrifice peace for their expansionist ideology, unfortunately they have a lot of influence in the inner circle of Israeli politics.



Accept Palistinian law? You mean the one where they're all supposed to die or convert or sprout wings or pay blood money to be permitted to live?

No, what's good for goose....once you leave you're gone for good.

no, Jews lived in arab countries for centuries and there is still a very important Jewish minority in for example Morocco. I accept they are sometimes discriminated, as are the Arab Israeli citizens.


You are so naive. After the creation of a Palestinian state the relationship between the two countries would be very minimal. Of course unless Palestine would become a full-pledge Democracy. There is a reason why Israel does not have a single serious relationship with anyone of its neighbors as the explanation of why Arabs don't have much of a relationship with each other. The only two full-pledged Democracies in the region - Israel and Turkey - somehow enjoy a full normal relationship and by far the strongest diplomatic bilateral ties in the region.

Turkey isn't a democracy. even in this hardest of times in israeli-palestinian relations mubarrak pledged to improve relations with israel. A lot of other Arab countries are also ready to establish normal relations with Israel once the palestinian problem is settled.




And no, peace between Israel, Egypt and Jordan is not much of a peace but a rather a status-quo upheld by a third party. Do you know what that third party is?

yes, but this third party isn't going to dissolve overnight.
i don't think it's a status-quo, considering the situation relations are normal, what do you expect? A kind of middle Eastern union like in Europe? Some decades ago they were at war with eachother, such things don't change rapidly, but relations today can be called normal, altough not very warm. This can be established with the palestinians as well.

[Mediocrates]

There is absolutely no reason to extend the olive branch to Takeostan. When they cut your arm off they'll simply waste a lot of time patiently explaining to you how they are OWED your arm. There are treaties and relationships in place now. If Egypt wants to improve on them let Egypt make the first move.

And did you notice that in Takeostan one can have any relations they want with any arab country they want except for Turkey, Israel's quasi-ally already.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by takeo
According to a poll conducted by the Tel Aviv university 60% of the surveyed Israeli's want to dismantle the settlements and around two thirths of them favors a Palestinian state.

www.jpost.com

You need to dig up that link - listing the front page of the newspaper isn't enough. So far it's bogus until you locate the actual data.

[Mediocrates]

Ah never mind, found it.

As always the facts coming out of Takistan need some reality adjustment (normalization to account for a lying factor)

According to the poll, 59 percent of Israelis would agree to establishment of a Palestinian state in the framework of peace, up from 49 percent last year, and 59 percent support the evacuation of all but the largest blocs of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza,(my emph.) compared to 50 percent a year ago.

The poll showed that 43 percent of Israelis were prepared to leave the Arab sections of Jerusalem in the framework of peace, almost unchanged from a year earlier.(my emph.)

The poll questioned 1,103 Israelis between April 27 and May 23 and quoted a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.

In other findings, 34 percent of Israelis felt a war was likely within three years, a sharp decline from the 2002 survey, when 79 percent predicted a war. Similarly, the current poll found 43 percent optimistic that peace with Israel's neighbors would be strengthened in the coming three years, compared to only 21 percent last year.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Ah never mind, found it.

According to the poll, 59 percent of Israelis would agree to establishment of a Palestinian state in the framework of peace, up from 49 percent last year, and 59 percent support the evacuation of all but the largest blocs of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza,(my emph.) compared to 50 percent a year ago.

The poll showed that 43 percent of Israelis were prepared to leave the Arab sections of Jerusalem in the framework of peace, almost unchanged from a year earlier.(my emph.)

As always the facts coming out of Takistan need some reality adjustment (normalization to account for a lying factor)

takeo, what you have done is nothing less than a complete misrepresentation. Leaving out the framework for peace bit and the except for the largest settlement blocks bit (which, I would assume, must necessarily include Jerusalem 'settlements') results in a completely skewed picture of the positioins the survey actually attempted to elicit.

The "in exchange for peace" really means "in a magical parallel universe" given the attitudes and positions of the PA and the Plaestinians in general with their fictional right of return which is almost universally opposed in Israel and will NOT be part of any actual agreement (note the word AGREE in agreement) and given the Palestinians have still not REALLY given up their dream of destroying Israel.

There is no need for this sort of intellectual chicanery.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by takeo
According to a poll conducted by the Tel Aviv university 60% of the surveyed Israeli's want to dismantle the settlements and around two thirths of them favors a Palestinian state.

www.jpost.com

Polls conducted in Cairo, Damascus and Tehran indicate that there’s 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999% support for removing the wall.

[takeo]

as well as 99.999999999999 percent of palestinians, as well as 99.9999999999999999999999999999999 percent of new Yorkers are against Al-quaida...

There is still one Jew living in Kabul, he must be lonely.
But quite some are still living in Teheran, but i guess polls in Iran don't really have a lot of value, because people will never tell what they really think about this issue in public.

[takeo]

And did you notice that in Takeostan one can have any relations they want with any arab country they want except for Turkey, Israel's quasi-ally already.

Turkey is a police-state not a democracy, but that shouldn't prevent anyone from having normal relations with Turkey, just don't refer to Turkey as being a democracy.


You need to dig up that link - listing the front page of the newspaper isn't enough. So far it's bogus until you locate the actual data.

I've read it on the jerusalem post yesterday but it has disappeared now and i'm not entitled to search in the archives, because you need to be registrated to do so.

_As always the facts coming out of Takistan need some reality adjustment (normalization to account for a lying factor)

No, it wasn't the same article, altough i presume it is based on the same survey. all the facts i presented are real, where are your facts? You hardly ever come with some proove to base your claims.




takeo, what you have done is nothing less than a complete misrepresentation. Leaving out the framework for peace bit and the except for the largest settlement blocks bit (which, I would assume, must necessarily include Jerusalem 'settlements') results in a completely skewed picture of the positioins the survey actually attempted to elicit.

what i wrote are the main and most important conclusions of this poll, your assumption isn't necessarily the same as those of the surveyed people, and what i wrote above is still valid. (of course in a peace framework, that's obvious)

The "in exchange for peace" really means "in a magical parallel universe" given the attitudes and positions of the PA and the Plaestinians in general with their fictional right of return which is almost universally opposed in Israel and will NOT be part of any actual agreement (note the word AGREE in agreement) and given the Palestinians have still not REALLY given up their dream of destroying Israel.

again, that's your interpretation. The "right of return" can be debated and shouldn't be total, as even arafat himself indicated, and as you know i don't believe that the majority of the palestinians still want to destroy israel, polls in palestine have indicated this as well.


There is no need for this sort of intellectual chicanery.

I didn't do so, just i posted the main results of the poll in response to newsguy who said that his opinion is the mainstream one in Israel, which is not true.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by takeo
[just i posted the main results of the poll in response to newsguy who said that his opinion is the mainstream one in Israel, which is not true.
Generally, Takeo is right. Whether it's 60% or 40% of Israelis, too many of us still imagine that if we'd only go back to pre-67 borders, things would be better than they are now and Israel will be pat on the back and be left alone.

The fact that slighly less than one out of 3 Israelis could say that the Geneva Accords is a good idea shows just how head bashed and brain damaged too many walking zombie Israelis have become.

While my original post, pointing to this thread (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=4437), could be construed as humorous, it really is anything but.

Way too many people in Israel and almost all of Israel's politicians have taken the bait year after year. All their red lines have since moved to the Arab's green line. But it won't end there.

[eyl]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Generally, Takeo is right. Whether it's 60% or 40% of Israelis, too many of us still imagine that if we'd only go back to pre-67 borders, things would be better than they are now and Israel will be pat on the back and be left alone.

Not quite. As I said above, the question is the terms. I think giving up part of the Territories is neccessary; OTOH, I would oppose return to the 1967 lines as they were.

The fact that slighly less than one out of 3 Israelis could say that the Geneva Accords is a good idea shows just how head bashed and brain damaged too many walking zombie Israelis have become.

Again, the question is the terms. The Accords have a high level of support in general; but a poll which questioned support for each of their specific parts showed support varied (e.g., there's large opposition to the section regarding Palestinian prisoners).

[Noam]

Originally posted by takeo
According to a poll conducted by the Tel Aviv university 60% of the surveyed Israeli's want to dismantle the settlements and around two thirths of them favors a Palestinian state.

www.jpost.com

78% supported OSLO.
Israelis are "DYING" for peace.
The question is--dismanteling settlements in return for what???

Those who want peace so eagerly BELIEVE that ARAFAT is a partner.
All of our SHABAK says NO.

Jews are NATRUAL GIVERS. (Tzdaka Tazil Mimavet...lol)

[takeo]

Israeli's aren't braindead, their politicians are. they have seen that the current policy of sharon leads nowhere and their lifes and economic conditions are deteriorating. I hope next time they will vote according to their ideas and not according to their fears.

Most israeli's don't care at all for the occupied territories and they are sick and tired of living in a war-like situation. Polls on the palestinian side had the same results and there is generally a great desire for peace on both sides. Palestinians want israel to start negociating and make concessions in order to stop the intifadeh, which isn't only very harmfull for israel but for the palestinians even more. But they won't stop without any concessions, since it would leave them with an unjust peace which means war is just around the corner. Hamas will not be able to prevent negociations and once palestinians received their own state and setlements will be dismantled they will be rapidly marginalised since they would endanger the much wanted state and peace. The only thing left for Arafat and his regime will be to "go for the kill" once Hamas is weakened, as Arab dictators have prooven they are very good at it, they failed to do so in the 90's.
The green line will be the new border, both israeli and palestinians as well as the un agree on this principle, yet small border adjustments can be possible. The Geneva-agreements are much better than Oslo since they envision a total solution in a short period of time while at the same time both parties are forced to commit to their commitments.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by takeo
Israeli's aren't braindead
I disagree.
their politicians are.
I agree.
they have seen that the current policy of sharon leads nowhere
A policy started with Rabin, continuing on with Peres, Netanyahu, Barak and Sharon. They all led nowhere.
and their lifes and economic conditions are deteriorating.
I attribute blame first and foremost to the Arabs. Next, indeed to Sharon, for lack of a definitive policy.
I hope next time they will vote according to their ideas and not according to their fears.
Barak versus Sharon. Sharon was just a lesser of 2 evils.
Most israeli's don't care at all for the occupied territoriesThey will when they give them up and find out that the Pals will continue with their war.
and they are sick and tired of living in a war-like situation.
Again a war started by Arafat. But yes, Israelis are weak and think of today - not tomorrow.
Polls on the palestinian side had the same results and there is generally a great desire for peace on both sides.
PCPO Poll of Palestinians 54.9% support suicide attacks in Israel (http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=18409)
Palestinians want israel to start negociating and make concessions in order to stop the intifadeh, which isn't only very harmfull for israel but for the palestinians even more.
Logic would dictate that the one being harmed even more should stop harming themselves.
But they won't stop without any concessions, since it would leave them with an unjust peace which means war is just around the corner.
War has been here for 3 years. Only Israel isn't aware of it. Again, stupid Jews.
Hamas will not be able to prevent negociations and once palestinians received their own state and setlements will be dismantled they will be rapidly marginalised since they would endanger the much wanted state and peace.
Another big happy lie, bought by many a gullable Israeli. When Arafat and Faisal Husseini both compared the piece process to a Trojan horse, I had no problems understanding them. Hamas and Co. just state very clearly that they don't feel the need to bother fooling anyone.
The only thing left for Arafat and his regime will be to "go for the kill" once Hamas is weakened
He funds them.
as Arab dictators have prooven they are very good at it
Well we got something right here. And we're supossed to give this dictator, with his bloodstain record and clearly laid out goals for Israel's destruction, a state right alongside of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Netanya, Hadera and Haifa. Normal people would says "no dice" but too many stupid Israelis are willing to shoot craps.
The Geneva-agreements are much better than Oslo since they envision a total solution
Jimmy Carter put it perfectly when he inadvertantly described the agreement as a "Final Solution".

[takeo]

you're way too pessimistic, this attitude will bring you nowhere.


PCPO Poll of Palestinians 54.9% support suicide attacks in Israel

Widespread support (75%) for Mahmoud Abbas' (Abu Mazen) proposal to centralize decision-making on national issues.



· The majority (72%) wants to give Abu Mazen's government a "fair chance" to succeed.



· Conditional support for stopping attacks against Israeli targets (71%).



· Ending the occupation (59.2%), improving economic conditions (13.6%) and rooting out corruption (9%) are priorities.

Broad support for resumption of negotiations with Israel (63%).




http://home.birzeit.edu/dsp/DSPNEW/polls/poll_12/


Another big happy lie, bought by many a gullable Israeli. When Arafat and Faisal Husseini both compared the piece process to a Trojan horse, I had no problems understanding them. Hamas and Co. just state very clearly that they don't feel the need to bother fooling anyone.

this are fantasy and conspiracy theories not confirmed by reality or prooves.


He funds them.

idem


Well we got something right here. And we're supossed to give this dictator, with his bloodstain record and clearly laid out goals for Israel's destruction, a state right alongside of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Netanya, Hadera and Haifa. Normal people would says "no dice" but too many stupid Israelis are willing to shoot craps.

He could be a dictator but dictatorships are usually more capable of dealing with terrorists within their borders.


Jimmy Carter put it perfectly when he inadvertantly described the agreement as a "Final Solution".

so what do you favor? a total war against the entire arab world, against the un? a continuation of the current policy? etnic cleansing?

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
what i wrote are the main and most important conclusions of this poll, your assumption isn't necessarily the same as those of the surveyed people, and what i wrote above is still valid. (of course in a peace framework, that's obvious)


no you didn't. You can't translate x% of Israelis want peace IN THE CONTEXT of an agreement to x% want to pull out. it doesn't work that way.


again, that's your interpretation. The "right of return" can be debated and shouldn't be total, as even arafat himself indicated, and as you know i don't believe that the majority of the palestinians still want to destroy israel, polls in palestine have indicated this as well.


but of course "polls in Palestine" ignore the millions of "refugees" (who are not really refugees at all as they were born in foreign countries) surrounding Israel who will not so easily give up this right. And of course your again imputing the best of intentions to Araft even if there is no reason to do so at all (he has never said to all the Plaestinians in any definitive way that the right of return will not be granted in full, and this was one of the reasons he used to scuttle the Camp David acords so that he could launch his dirty little war).

Polls indicate that the Palestinians desire to destroy Israel through demographic subversion (as they always ask about peace in the context of inclusion of an open ended right of return. What do you think the proportion who would agree to peace without it would be? I would guess under 30%.


I didn't do so, just i posted the main results of the poll in response to newsguy who said that his opinion is the mainstream one in Israel, which is not true. [/B]

you distorted the questions to the point where the "results" you posted had nothing to do with the questions thta were asked. It doesn't work that way.

[eyl]

Originally posted by takeo
Conditional support for stopping attacks against Israeli targets

Which means what, exactly?

He funds them.
idem

Takeo, why are you so insistent on forcibly interpreting Arafat's actions in the best possible light, to the point of ignoring data? In Arabic, when off the Western cameras, Arafat has openly stated his support for the fight against Israel. I can't prove to you that he's behind (in part) the violence, because you won't accept Israeli calims (or documents found by Israel) as proof. I can, however, prove that he abbeted violence, by deliberately standing aside. Beyond words, Arafat has never done anything to show a desire for peace.

[Canajew]

takeo, what you essentially did is this:

I take a survey. I ask 1000 people this question:

for $500, will you give me your bicycle?

750 people say yes.

The correct implication is that 75% of people will exchange their bicycle in exchange for $500.

Your interpretation was: 75% of people surveyed were preapred to give up their bicycle.

While true, in the narrowest possible sense, the number would obviously change if the $ value involved was changed to $100 or $1000, just like "in exchange for peace" vs "not in exchange for peace" would also change the rate of positive response.

However, again, the "in exchange for peace" is equivalent to me saying "in exchange for $10,000" even though (i) I do not have the $10,000 to give you because my spending is controlled by "the street" which has been propagandized into believing that part of the $ (the "right of return") is sacred and inalienable and (ii) I do not have any intention of actually giving you $10,000 even if I were capable of doing so.

So you see how were a survey undertaken asking, "would you give up your bike for $10,000" would NOT allow a person to then make the statement "95% of people are in favour of giving up their bikes" because that would be a misleading statement and a manipulation of the information embedded in the data.

Israelis want the conflict to end. That is what can be taken from those polls. they are not prepared to surrender, however, and it is for the Plaestinians to stop fighting first, just like it was in 1947, just like it was in 1967 and just like it has been ever since then. But they will not stop fighting, and so Israeli desires to end the conflict (as seen from Barak's offer of almost everything the Palestinians wanted in 2000) will not do anything to stop the violence or actually bring about peace. for that to happen the palestinians have to be prepared to stop. It's really that simple.

[minusthejihad]

What more can you expect from a Tako?

[wellofvow]

Originally posted by takeo
Israeli's aren't braindead, their politicians are. they have seen that the current policy of sharon leads nowhere and their lifes and economic conditions are deteriorating. I hope next time they will vote according to their ideas and not according to their fears.

Most israeli's don't care at all for the occupied territories and they are sick and tired of living in a war-like situation. Polls on the palestinian side had the same results and there is generally a great desire for peace on both sides. Palestinians want israel to start negociating and make concessions in order to stop the intifadeh, which isn't only very harmfull for israel but for the palestinians even more. But they won't stop without any concessions, since it would leave them with an unjust peace which means war is just around the corner. Hamas will not be able to prevent negociations and once palestinians received their own state and setlements will be dismantled they will be rapidly marginalised since they would endanger the much wanted state and peace. The only thing left for Arafat and his regime will be to "go for the kill" once Hamas is weakened, as Arab dictators have prooven they are very good at it, they failed to do so in the 90's.
The green line will be the new border, both israeli and palestinians as well as the un agree on this principle, yet small border adjustments can be possible. The Geneva-agreements are much better than Oslo since they envision a total solution in a short period of time while at the same time both parties are forced to commit to their commitments.

I should probably know better, but........ here goes.

Takeo, what makes you think that you have any idea at all of what Israelis are, think, see, or care about? Reading what polls say?

There is such a rainbow of opinions just from the Israelis here on the forum - multiply that rainbow by a million. And then there are those who change their positions after an event. There's nothing like losing a child, mother, neighbor, brother, friend, to a Palestinian terrorist to nudge one out of an I Love the Palestinians position.

Most of the people I know - and I'm not talking about polls, I'm talking about moms with kids in the army, about friends of my kids who are in the army, about friends living in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv - agree about giving to the Palestinians Gaza and much of the West Bank. I don't know anyone who says to give it all to them. I don't know *anyone* who has praised the Beilin Accord. Everyone says that it is a complete crock and don't take it seriously, which it shouldn't be. It has utterly no validity or substance.

Israel's Labor party had two tries, well, three, with Prime Ministers who were "negotiating" with Arafat. It is pretty pathetic to keep harping that it is all Sharon's fault. It used to be all Netanyahu's fault. It even was Barak's fault. C'mon, with the closeminded, it's going to be the fault of whoever's Prime Minister in Israel when "negotiations" break down or don't take place.

Takeo "hopes that next time, Israelis will vote according to their ideas and not to their fears". This sounds like a gypsy fortuneteller. Israelis give their vote to whomever they feel will get us a life again.

I doubt if there is a single Israeli who is the same person he or she was 4 years ago. You, Takeo, pontificate on what we feel, and how we think. Don't you think this is a bit much? How much time have you spent in Israel in the last 3 years? How many kids of yours - and their friends, whom you've known since they were in pre-kindergarten with your kids - have you worried about every night and day for 3 years? How many times have you jumped when the phone rang late at night? How many friends whom you've known for 30 or 40 years live in Jerusalem?

Stick to quoting (out of context) from your beloved polls, and throwing in all your "evidence" from radical websites and mendacious media sources. STOP telling the forum what "Israelis" think, feel, and see.

The whole idea of terror is to make the terrorized sick and tired of living in a war situation. But haven't you noticed? Israel hasn't given up. The media likes to report that we have. The media is wrong. Restaurants that are totalled by a homicide bomber are back in business, completely rebuilt, within a year. People go on having babies.

If you really believe what the Palestinians say, what the polls say, and what the media says, you are a fool.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
Turkey is a police-state not a democracy, but that shouldn't prevent anyone from having normal relations with Turkey, just don't refer to Turkey as being a democracy.


so let me get all this straight. Turkey is a police state even though it has the rule of law and civil right snad changes in political eladers, while Lbeanon is a free and vibrant democracy notwithstanding the fatc that it is under Syrian occupation and its leaders are Syrian puppets? Want to spell this out for the class a little?

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
you're way too pessimistic, this attitude will bring you nowhere.


it is not about where an idea will take you it is about objectively assessing a situation and then making educated policy decisions based on that accurate view of reality. Delusional wishful-thinking will only result in a mis-assessment, which will only result in BAD policy decisions, which will only result in FAILING to achieve the policy objectives desired.

With respect, the wishful thinking pie-in-the-sky delusional world view that yuo espouse with respect to the Palestinians is the real attitude that will bring you nowhere (unless backwards counts as somewhere).

[Canajew]

Originally posted by wellofvow
I should probably know better, but........ here goes.

Takeo, what makes you think that you have any idea at all of what Israelis are, think, see, or care about? Reading what polls say?

There is such a rainbow of opinions just from the Israelis here on the forum - multiply that rainbow by a million. And then there are those who change their positions after an event. There's nothing like losing a child, mother, neighbor, brother, friend, to a Palestinian terrorist to nudge one out of an I Love the Palestinians position.

Most of the people I know - and I'm not talking about polls, I'm talking about moms with kids in the army, about friends of my kids who are in the army, about friends living in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv - agree about giving to the Palestinians Gaza and much of the West Bank. I don't know anyone who says to give it all to them. I don't know *anyone* who has praised the Beilin Accord. Everyone says that it is a complete crock and don't take it seriously, which it shouldn't be. It has utterly no validity or substance.

Israel's Labor party had two tries, well, three, with Prime Ministers who were "negotiating" with Arafat. It is pretty pathetic to keep harping that it is all Sharon's fault. It used to be all Netanyahu's fault. It even was Barak's fault. C'mon, with the closeminded, it's going to be the fault of whoever's Prime Minister in Israel when "negotiations" break down or don't take place.

Takeo "hopes that next time, Israelis will vote according to their ideas and not to their fears". This sounds like a gypsy fortuneteller. Israelis give their vote to whomever they feel will get us a life again.

I doubt if there is a single Israeli who is the same person he or she was 4 years ago. You, Takeo, pontificate on what we feel, and how we think. Don't you think this is a bit much? How much time have you spent in Israel in the last 3 years? How many kids of yours - and their friends, whom you've known since they were in pre-kindergarten with your kids - have you worried about every night and day for 3 years? How many times have you jumped when the phone rang late at night? How many friends whom you've known for 30 or 40 years live in Jerusalem?

Stick to quoting (out of context) from your beloved polls, and throwing in all your "evidence" from radical websites and mendacious media sources. STOP telling the forum what "Israelis" think, feel, and see.

The whole idea of terror is to make the terrorized sick and tired of living in a war situation. But haven't you noticed? Israel hasn't given up. The media likes to report that we have. The media is wrong. Restaurants that are totalled by a homicide bomber are back in business, completely rebuilt, within a year. People go on having babies.

If you really believe what the Palestinians say, what the polls say, and what the media says, you are a fool.

wow. Bravo. (clapping)

[takeo]

but of course "polls in Palestine" ignore the millions of "refugees" (who are not really refugees at all as they were born in foreign countries) surrounding Israel who will not so easily give up this right. And of course your again imputing the best of intentions to Araft even if there is no reason to do so at all (he has never said to all the Plaestinians in any definitive way that the right of return will not be granted in full, and this was one of the reasons he used to scuttle the Camp David acords so that he could launch his dirty little war).

yes he said so in public, he would be a fool to say it against his own audience, but he knows compromise is necessary. Barak was not prepared to compromise on this matter.




Polls indicate that the Palestinians desire to destroy Israel through demographic subversion (as they always ask about peace in the context of inclusion of an open ended right of return. What do you think the proportion who would agree to peace without it would be? I would guess under 30%.

which polls are you refering to?


Conditional support for stopping attacks against Israeli targets

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Which means what, exactly?

exactly what it means, conditional support, which means they will support the end of the attacks once the most obvious requirements have been fullfilled, such as end of the occupation etc.

Takeo, why are you so insistent on forcibly interpreting Arafat's actions in the best possible light, to the point of ignoring data? In Arabic, when off the Western cameras, Arafat has openly stated his support for the fight against Israel. I can't prove to you that he's behind (in part) the violence, because you won't accept Israeli calims (or documents found by Israel) as proof. I can, however, prove that he abbeted violence, by deliberately standing aside. Beyond words, Arafat has never done anything to show a desire for peace.

i only accept hard proove, and haven't seen any yet, not even documents prooving Arafat is paying hamas. all the indications point to the contrary. Arafat has never praised the attacks against civilians, and he never demanded to state of israel to cease to exist.

I take a survey. I ask 1000 people this question:

for $500, will you give me your bicycle?

750 people say yes.

The correct implication is that 75% of people will exchange their bicycle in exchange for $500.

Your interpretation was: 75% of people surveyed were preapred to give up their bicycle.

While true, in the narrowest possible sense, the number would obviously change if the $ value involved was changed to $100 or $1000, just like "in exchange for peace" vs "not in exchange for peace" would also change the rate of positive response.

However, again, the "in exchange for peace" is equivalent to me saying "in exchange for $10,000" even though (i) I do not have the $10,000 to give you because my spending is controlled by "the street" which has been propagandized into believing that part of the $ (the "right of return") is sacred and inalienable and (ii) I do not have any intention of actually giving you $10,000 even if I were capable of doing so.

I guess you are referring to the right of return, since an end of hostilities is obvious unlike your example of the expensive bike... But even this "right of return" isn't impossible, a torough demographic study should be carried out to determine how many israel can absorve without destabilising.





Israelis want the conflict to end. That is what can be taken from those polls. they are not prepared to surrender, however, and it is for the Plaestinians to stop fighting first, just like it was in 1947, just like it was in 1967 and just like it has been ever since then. But they will not stop fighting, and so Israeli desires to end the conflict (as seen from Barak's offer of almost everything the Palestinians wanted in 2000) will not do anything to stop the violence or actually bring about peace. for that to happen the palestinians have to be prepared to stop. It's really that simple.

nowhere in the polls is indicated that palestinians should make the first step, that's your interpretation. israeli politicians never gave the palestinians what apparently the majority of israelis want: give back the occupied territories and accept a palestinian state (with own borders etc.) so UNLIKE what Barab promised during Camp David. this, together with a limited right of return, will be the conditions to stop fighting. It's really that simple.

Only a 9mm can end anti-semetism. - Gilgamesh

Gilgamesh would love to see all arabs and muslims massacred, only a 9mm can stop people like gilgamesh.

[takeo]

I should probably know better, but........ here goes.

Takeo, what makes you think that you have any idea at all of what Israelis are, think, see, or care about? Reading what polls say?

There is such a rainbow of opinions just from the Israelis here on the forum - multiply that rainbow by a million. And then there are those who change their positions after an event. There's nothing like losing a child, mother, neighbor, brother, friend, to a Palestinian terrorist to nudge one out of an I Love the Palestinians position.

Most of the people I know - and I'm not talking about polls, I'm talking about moms with kids in the army, about friends of my kids who are in the army, about friends living in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv - agree about giving to the Palestinians Gaza and much of the West Bank. I don't know anyone who says to give it all to them. I don't know *anyone* who has praised the Beilin Accord. Everyone says that it is a complete crock and don't take it seriously, which it shouldn't be. It has utterly no validity or substance.

Israel's Labor party had two tries, well, three, with Prime Ministers who were "negotiating" with Arafat. It is pretty pathetic to keep harping that it is all Sharon's fault. It used to be all Netanyahu's fault. It even was Barak's fault. C'mon, with the closeminded, it's going to be the fault of whoever's Prime Minister in Israel when "negotiations" break down or don't take place.

Takeo "hopes that next time, Israelis will vote according to their ideas and not to their fears". This sounds like a gypsy fortuneteller. Israelis give their vote to whomever they feel will get us a life again.

I doubt if there is a single Israeli who is the same person he or she was 4 years ago. You, Takeo, pontificate on what we feel, and how we think. Don't you think this is a bit much? How much time have you spent in Israel in the last 3 years? How many kids of yours - and their friends, whom you've known since they were in pre-kindergarten with your kids - have you worried about every night and day for 3 years? How many times have you jumped when the phone rang late at night? How many friends whom you've known for 30 or 40 years live in Jerusalem?

Stick to quoting (out of context) from your beloved polls, and throwing in all your "evidence" from radical websites and mendacious media sources. STOP telling the forum what "Israelis" think, feel, and see.

The whole idea of terror is to make the terrorized sick and tired of living in a war situation. But haven't you noticed? Israel hasn't given up. The media likes to report that we have. The media is wrong. Restaurants that are totalled by a homicide bomber are back in business, completely rebuilt, within a year. People go on having babies.

If you really believe what the Palestinians say, what the polls say, and what the media says, you are a fool.

Well, I have been to Israel once, and all MY friends in Israel belong to gush shalom, so not exactly representative, but probably neither is your inner circle...

I know of course that in Israel there are as many opinions as there are Israeli's (which is essentially a good thing but can be annoying at times). Not only the Jews but even israeli palestinians seem to be very divided over a lot of issues.
Your friends and family are not an objective group, while polls ought to be representative. And of course you know a lot more about israel and usually i don't make comments about things that shouldn't concern me (altough a lot of American jews on this site think they know better what is going on in Israel and france than people who lived all their life in Israel or France, and almost all participants think that they know arabs, eventough most have never visited arab countries and probably don't have any personal relations with arabs either) . But in this case i based my conclusions on polls conducted by the university of Tel aviv, an institution above suspition.


so let me get all this straight. Turkey is a police state even though it has the rule of law and civil right snad changes in political eladers, while Lbeanon is a free and vibrant democracy notwithstanding the fatc that it is under Syrian occupation and its leaders are Syrian puppets? Want to spell this out for the class a little?

yes i will (altough i'm no longer a teacher
Turkey doesn't have any rule of law and even less civil rights, the military still decides behind the curtains. There are still daily torture going on in Turksih police stations and journalists, opposition or trade union leaders tend to disappear. during the last years numerous parties have been banned for futile reasons, and anyone who dares to defend Kurdish rights let alone secession will spend some years in jail. about the rule of law: even the current government has to be very carefull because the military already threatened with a putch on several occasions, and they are still represented in the very powerfull "security council", the unofficial government.

In Lebanon there is Syrian army present but they don't interfere at all with internal politics. In lebanon, altough it has a very bloody past, less people than in Turkey get killed or jailed for political reasons. And in lebanon all parties can run in the elections, whatever their political agenda. So, of course Lebanon is more democratic than Turkey, and if it would be a little closer to Europe we would have accepted lebanon instead of Turkey.

Anyway, it's sure that Turkey is improving, because they know it's the only way to become part of the European Union. The US, who always supported and trained the Turkish military, never did a single effort to promote freedom and democracy in Turkey.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by takeo
Gilgamesh would love to see all arabs and muslims massacred,
only a 9mm can stop people like gilgamesh.

Arab terrorists do their best to stop Jews like me. You seem to joined them!

However, you are either racist or stupis, to believe all Arabs are racists or that stupid to hold on their anti semetic opinions once Anti Semeticsts get finished off.

Lastly, 9mm is not the only option to deal with anti semetics!!!
5.56mm rifles rounds, B-300 ,120mm tank shell ,155mm artillary shell, turbo popeye, nuclear capable Jericho missiles... I'm not picky. Roast them, cook them, stew them, squash them, micro- wave them, poison them, scatter them in pieces, turn them to a stain on the wall or a paddle of gue on the road... I don't care! Just relive us NORMAL people, from their presense.

And only so you won't consider me too radical: I know good anti semites... THEY ARE ALL [u][b]DEAD[/i][b] (paraphrasing Gen. Sherman, American civil war).

On the other hand... If you like anti semetics that much, takeo, stay in France! Enjoy your life there!

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by takeo

so what do you favor? a total war against the entire arab world, against the un? a continuation of the current policy? etnic cleansing?

2 out of 4 sounds good to me.

[wellofvow]

Well, I have been to Israel once, and all MY friends in Israel belong to gush shalom, so not exactly representative, but probably neither is your inner circle...
Takeo: My ONLY point here is to try to make you understand and grant that my 35 years experience (and all as an adult, I moved to Israel in my 20s) of living, working, raising a family, interacting with all kinds of Israelis on all kinds of levels is significantly more credible than your reliance on a visit, once, to Israel, your Gush Shalom friends, and your reliance on polls.

Your gruding admission that your narrow acquaintance of friends, who ALL EXCLUSIVELY belong to Gush Shalom by your own admission, is nice. However, AGAIN, you insist on writing things about my mysterious "inner circle" (I didn't know I had one!). YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ME, *OR* ISRAELIS, AND YOUR POSTINGS POSING AS SOME KIND OF KNOWLEDGEABLE GURU ARE EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE.

Did you hear me?

Your friends and family are not an objective group, while polls ought to be representative.

But in this case i based my conclusions on polls conducted by the university of Tel aviv, an institution above suspition.
Again, you attempt to claim that you know me, my friends and family. LET THIS GO. It is offensive.

FYO, none of my family have ever voted Likud. My children have voted Meretz (far-Left), but are moving away from the Left. My friends, neighbors, shopkeepers I frequent, taxi drivers I talk to, people I work with (and I work in an institution of thousands of people) probably constitute the complete spectrum of opinion, and most certainly ARE an "objective group".

Polls, on the other hand, as you carefully say, "ought" to be representative. The operational word is "ought", since polls are notoriously suspect. My field is epidemiology, and I am quite conversant with various types of bias in the selection of subjects for a study. For example, even if a poll claims "random selection" by going through a phone book, this tells any knowledgeable epidemiologist that there is an automatic bias: all people without a phone have been EXCLUDED from the poll. Then there is the issue that poll-participants are self-selected. Those who participate in a poll constitute a biased sample - they want to get their opinions on record, while those who refuse to participate have an equal right to vote, and go unrepresented in the poll, so the poll is basically meaningless. The way that epidemiologists get around this self-selection bias is to do an elaborate statistical analysis showing that the non-participants DO NOT DIFFER from the particpants in any meaningful way. Show me a poll that does this absolutely essential analysis!

Tel Aviv University is certainly NOT "above suspicion". Why should it be? Any study or poll is open to bias, either planned or not planned, and many researchers - and probably ALL pollsters - are
quite ignorant of the many types of bias that exist both in research studies and certainly in "polls".

[takeo]

I don't doubt your knowledge about how Israeli people think etc. after so many years of living and working in israel, and of course that's not my ambition or what i wanted to make clear. Sorry if it sounded offensive to you that was not my intention.
BUT people who live in France all their life have all different opinions about immigrants, Islam, etc. as in Israel as well people who lived all their life in Israel can still have very contradicting opinions. So, personal opinions are not reliable indications of what people think about certain issues, for this you need statistical research to be sure. You can have a certain indication, especially if you know people in all social and etnic strata and in all regions of Israel, but a poll as still more indicative. I lived in France all my (young) life but i still don't know how the majority of french people think about certain issues (including people i never came across such as peasants in the mountain regions etc.). That's my point, I'm certainly not a Guru who pretend to know everything about Israel (as some people on this site who never visited France think they know everything about how racist, antisemitic blabla France is based on a few biased articles in ty publications).


Your arguments concerning polls are relevant, and indeed it can never be 100% reliable. Still polls mostly predict quite accurately the results of elections so even if some people are left out it's still, more or less, not precisely, a representation of what the majority of Israeli's think. In non-democratic, non-western countries polls are mostly unreliable because people are afraid to say their opinion in public and many people simply can't be interrogated because lack of facilities and privacy. (that's why polls in Iraq are much more unreliable for example)

[eyl]

Originally posted by takeo
Your arguments concerning polls are relevant, and indeed it can never be 100% reliable. Still polls mostly predict quite accurately the results of elections so even if some people are left out it's still, more or less, not precisely, a representation of what the majority of Israeli's think.

Tell that to Shimon Peres :D

The problem is that polls are very sensitive to the questions asked, as well as to the bias (if any) of those interpreting the data. The questions usually try to boil down a complex issue into a 1-sentence yes/no answer (or a "how much do you agree with this statement" grade), which means the answers are significantly simplified. Some issues can indeed be simplified like that (especially if you're only checking one aspect of the issue), but many can't.

For example, I could have a poll with a question, "are you in favor of returning land for peace". Let's say I get, e.g., 55% in favor. But what does that tell me? Of those who answered "Yes", some want to pull back to the 1967 lines, others may think to give up one or two isolated settlements, others may be in between. Some may want agree to do so under any circumstances, others only under certain conditions. and so on.

[Noam]

"I doubt if there is a single Israeli who is the same person he or she was 4 years ago."

I certainly feel some reduction in Sexual prowess as a result of sitting four years in front of a computer ...all that pressure on the scrotum.... like bicycle riders.......

Change is there.
(not sure that Single has anything to do with it).

[wellofvow]

Originally posted by Noam
"I doubt if there is a single Israeli who is the same person he or she was 4 years ago."

I certainly feel some reduction in Sexual prowess as a result of sitting four years in front of a computer ...all that pressure on the scrotum.... like bicycle riders.......

Change is there.
(not sure that Single has anything to do with it).

Har-de-har-har.

OK, I'll try to tone down my PASSIONATE outbursts, guys.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
OK, you're right, but when i came across this news i couldn't resist to post it. For example Newsguy said recently (as well as others) that they represent the opinion of the majority of the Israeli people. Clearly not...

Clearly yes, takeo, it's just that you don't bother to read carefully what I wrote.

For nearly 3 years I've come to realize that the reality is that certain parts of the Jewish homeland will be forcefully separated from Israel and given to the murderous Palestinian barbarians by the UN and EU, with the consent of the U.S.

This will be done partially as a reward for Palestinian terrorism, partially because the UN and EU are anti-Semitic hypocrits, and partially because of the American need to appease the Arab oil cartel, which literally fuels the American economy.

Be that as it may, it's important to recognize the reality of the situation, and therefore, in the past 3 years I've suggested that some Israeli settlements and some Palestinian settlements be dismantled and their populations exchanged in order to build a defensible border between Israel and Arafatistan.

In this framework, I would suggest that some of the Gaza settlements be dismantled to fence off the entire Gaza strip into which the Arab residents of much of the West Bank should be transferred in exchange for the Israeli concession. I believe that this is not only my personal position, but that of the majority of Israelis, as well.

This is not to say that the Palestinians have any right to live in the Jewish homeland, but as a strategy to make the boest of a bad situation.

[Kapiti]

Newsguy : "the UN and EU are anti-Semitic hypocrits" In 8 simple words Newsguy writes off what most of the world believes and very conveniently uses the anti-semitic line.

Your definition of an anti-semite seems very broad. It appears to cover everyone one planet earth who does not believe in the hocus pocus that the Jewish inhabitants who had largely abandoned much of the land for thousands of years have the modern day right to kick the inhabitants of the WB and G out of the homes and land they had been living in the substantial majority for millenia.

"This is not to say that the Palestinians have any right to live in the Jewish homeland" If 2,000 years of living as the majority does not give you rights what does exactly ?

[Mediocrates]

It is expedient for you to wish for a Jew Free Palestine or merely the articulation of centuries of antisemitism? It seems to me that when you wave your magic wand over the Jewish homeland and proclaim it an accident at the end of 2000 years of something you are actually making Newsguys's case for him.

See the definition of antisemitism isn't overly broad - it's just about right. You just happen to fit the definition.

[eyl]

I wouldn't quite give the UN the tag of "anti-semetic". However, it is undisputingly biased against Israel. Compare, for example, the amount of resolutions condemning Israel to those condemning any other country, including those with far worse intl law/human rights violations.

Originally posted by Kapiti
Newsguy : "the UN and EU are anti-Semitic hypocrits" In 8 simple words Newsguy writes off what most of the world believes and very conveniently uses the anti-semitic line.

Your definition of an anti-semite seems very broad. It appears to cover everyone one planet earth who does not believe in the hocus pocus that the Jewish inhabitants who had largely abandoned much of the land for thousands of years have the modern day right to kick the inhabitants of the WB and G out of the homes and land they had been living in the substantial majority for millenia.

"This is not to say that the Palestinians have any right to live in the Jewish homeland" If 2,000 years of living as the majority does not give you rights what does exactly ?

[Mediocrates]

You will note though that Kapiti and Co. can never find any adequate definition of antisemitism. That is to them, nothing short of the Shoah fits their view of it. So trying to have that discussion with them is pointless.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by eyl
I wouldn't quite give the UN the tag of "anti-semetic". However, it is undisputingly biased against Israel. Compare, for example, the amount of resolutions condemning Israel to those condemning any other country, including those with far worse intl law/human rights violations.

To me, there is a nexus between discrimination against the Jewish State and anti-Semitism.

For example, in the past few weeks, the UN passed a resolution "protecting" Palestinian children against what they call terrorism. However, an identical resolution protecting Israeli children against terrorism was scrapped by the UN. It is difficult to conclude anything other than to the UN, the lives of Jews are worth less than lives of Muslims. There is no other explanation, nor does the UN even bother to offer one.

In August 2001, we saw the anti-Semitic UN conference in Durban, where anti-Israel and anti-Semitic posters were part of the official program. (http://www.adl.org/durban/durban_083101.asp)

And, may I add that in addition to the countless biased resolutions against the Jewish state, where none of the sort exist against Muslim terrorist states, we know that the Jewish State is the only one in the world prevented from sitting on the security council.

We also know that the UN is largely controlled by Arabs and their various oil slave clients, which is one of the main causes of the anti-Jewish discrimination at the UN.

Until these (and many other) inequities are rectified, the UN has no moral legitimacy, as it is no doubt a hypocritical and anti-Semitic organization.

[eyl]

The problem is, what is the UN?

The UNGA and the UNSC have no independent existence; they are merely assemblies of nations. So, you can judge their bias as bodies only on the resolutions they pass (or propose), not on their motivations. AFAIK, the UN hasn't passed any resoultions specifically against Jews, as opposed to Israel. Therefore, you can only say that those assemblies have an anti-Israeli bias, but not an anti-semetic one; though the anti-Israeli bias may arise from anti-semetic leanings possessed by their individual constituent members.

The Secreteriat is another matter, as are the various secondary bodies of the UN, but I don't have time to address them now (I have 30 minutes left to get to the grocery :( )

Later

Originally posted by NewsGuy
To me, there is a nexus between discrimination against the Jewish State and anti-Semitism.

For example, in the past few weeks, the UN passed a resolution "protecting" Palestinian children against what they call terrorism. However, an identical resolution protecting Israeli children against terrorism was scrapped by the UN. It is difficult to conclude anything other than to the UN, the lives of Jews are worth less than lives of Muslims. There is no other explanation, nor does the UN even bother to offer one.

In August 2001, we saw the anti-Semitic UN conference in Durban, where anti-Israel and anti-Semitic posters were part of the official program. (http://www.adl.org/durban/durban_083101.asp)

And, may I add that in addition to the countless biased resolutions against the Jewish state, where none of the sort exist against Muslim terrorist states, we know that the Jewish State is the only one in the world prevented from sitting on the security council.

We also know that the UN is largely controlled by Arabs and their various oil slave clients, which is one of the main causes of the anti-Jewish discrimination at the UN.

Until these (and many other) inequities are rectified, the UN has no moral legitimacy, as it is no doubt a hypocritical and anti-Semitic organization.

[SteveMetch]

I find it very interesting that Jesus, one of the most famous Jew’s of all time would be considered a “settler”. The Jordanians and Egyptians should go back to their respective countries or find somewhere else in the remaining 99.5% of the ME to live. A “Palestinian” nation would be a glorified refuge camp.

The Jewish people will never be free of terrorism as long as Satan is around. You midst well have the entirety of your homeland in exchange. Only the non-religious Jews think this is just a big misunderstanding to be cleared up with a few well crafted pieces of paper. The religious ones know that because the Jewish people brought the revelation of the one true God into the world they have earned the perpetual hatred of Satan and all who follow/worship him in one form or another.

[wellofvow]

Originally posted by Kapiti

Your definition of an anti-semite seems very broad. It appears to cover everyone one planet earth who does not believe in the hocus pocus that the Jewish inhabitants who had largely abandoned much of the land for thousands of years have the modern day right to kick the inhabitants of the WB and G out of the homes and land they had been living in the substantial majority for millenia.

"This is not to say that the Palestinians have any right to live in the Jewish homeland" If 2,000 years of living as the majority does not give you rights what does exactly ?

One who tries to cite historical "facts", as you attempt, really should have a good grasp of history, which you do not.

Jews did not "abandon" the land for thousands of years. We were kicked out. Hey, that makes the JEWS refugees! Surprise, surprise. We were not only driven out and made slaves (which the "Palestinians" can hardly claim, even to a sympathetic media), but we were denied return by many occupiers over the centuries.

And let's discuss the nomenclature "Palestinians": Those who stridently claim to be Palestinians now, with a distinctive culture, equally stridently denied being Palestinians until about 30 years ago or so. Today's "Palestinians" are Arabs who happened to live in a certain area. They have no distinctive culture, no distinctive history, claim no historical tribal leaders or heroes, have no distinctive practices setting them off from other Arabs, and so on. They are "Palestinians", therefore, only because they began to say so just a relatively few years ago. NOT millennia ago!!!

Most of the Jews were kicked out (this is the second time) in 70 CE. Mohammed didn't appear until the 7th century CE, so don't give me any song and dance that "Palestinians" have lived in Israel for 2000 years after the Jews abandoned it - as if for some frivolous reason. Do the math.

[Adversary2Arabs]

I, of all people, have been convicned there is an actual need for a Palestinian State. Here's what I see:

1. It will be comprised of about 85-90% of the Gaza Stip(all current Jewish communities will remain and be a "cutoff point" to where to take the 10 or so percent of Gaza.

2. The West Bank will be annexed.

3. Arabs of the West Bank and Israel will be given compensation to go live abroad or to emigrate to Palestine - in Gaza.

4. If Egypt wishes to give Palestine more land than Gaza, so be it.

5. Israeli "Arabs" will cease to exist - they will be Palestinians now.

6. Palestine will have no army, navy or air force, nor any means of fighting with the exception of police forces of each city/township who can use knives and handguns.

7. If over pollution, fishing, etc of the Mediterrainian sea from the Palestinians close to Israel becomes a problem, the Israeli Navy has full authority to call an abeyance of it. The waters are under full control of Israel, but permits will be given to fisherman, etc.

8. The UN will function as the army of Palestine, as it would for any other nation

9. Gaza(Palestine) will be split up into sub sections, to later be determined. These will not by physical, but rather on paper. They will be used for futre terror attacks against Israel. If a terror attack is purpretrated by a Palestinian of ANY national origin, one(1) division of Palestine will be taken over, annexed and its inhabitants expelled to the nearest division. This is the only way to prevent terror attacks from wanting to be committed.

10. Israeli Arabs are given the chance to full assimilate, take classes, etc. and convert and will be given permission to STAY (they would not leave and come back, they would remain and begin classes) to stay under the Law of Return. Periodic but frequent updates will be taken on these people to assure they are following what they said and are not doing this simply for the citizenship, etc, but to actually covert.

11. Palestine would not be able to sign any treaties of any kind without the direct consent of Israel's leadership

-----

I'm sure I'm missing some stuff, but that's the basics. Probably could use some ironing out too.

I came to the concusion a Palestinina state is needed because Israel MUST remain a democracy. Previously I had advocated expulsion/transfer of Arabs. Israel is not at the mercy of the PA Arabs, but the Israeli Arabs - the enemy within. No way would it be possible for the PA to overtake Israel, but legally, the Israeli Arabs could - because Israel is a democracy. This is a great system of government, but it has flaws - especially when a Jewish majority is a necessity and when "racist" actions such as explsuion of Arabs is impossible. There is no other way to remain a Jewish democracy other than to "give" Israeli Arabs to Palestine.

Furthermore, any additional size given to Palestine from Israel (no more than 90% of Gaza) would be acceptable. I would rathr see Israel become a the Fourth Reich than see a Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza - they both will have the same result, just the former would be quicker and less painful for us.


Now I'm ready for the backlash - let it come.

[Kapiti]

Newsguy : " We also know that the UN is largely controlled by Arabs and their various oil slave clients, which is one of the main causes of the anti-Jewish discrimination at the UN. " Lets disregard what the rest of the world thinks and just call them oil slaves. What a convenient way to write of the popular views of the gross majority of billions of the worlds people.


Adversary2Arabs : " Now I'm ready for the backlash - let it come" Your ideas are so childish and immature that you are lucky to get this reply let alone a backlash.

wellofvow : the Diaspora abandoned any serious attempt to get Israel back for almost 2 thousand years. If it had not been for a couple of very motivated Zionists at the end of the 1800's you would have missed the boat completly.

You say "Today's "Palestinians" are Arabs who happened to live in a certain area. They have no distinctive culture, no distinctive history, claim no historical tribal leaders or heroes, have no distinctive practices setting them off from other Arabs, and so on. " Lets assume it is true. What is your point ? The fact is that as Arabs living in the locality of Palestine (lets say specifically WB and G) they are entitled to rights to the land. These rights have priority over something which happened thousands of years ago. 99 percent of the world believes this but you seem to have a problem with the bleeding obvious.

Do the maths bright boy. Non Jews lived in Palestine from 10-12,000 years ago. We know this because the worlds oldest continuously inhabitants settlements border Palestine. Jericho, Byblos, Amman. I think the Jews would be lucky to dominate maybe 2,000 years of this time.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Lets disregard what the rest of the world thinks and just call them oil slaves. What a convenient way to write of the popular views of the gross majority of billions of the worlds people.

To be fair that's not precisely accurate. There are 22 'mainline' arab states but there are 68 muslim or predominantly muslim countries in the UN. The 22 are part of the 68. With the exception of Venezuela there are ZERO OPEC states which are not also muslim countries. As a group, those OPEC countries' oil exports represent something like 70% of their total aggregate GDP. That is, they don't make, service, build, manufacture much of anything else. Moreover, most of that economic development in those countries is state owned - eg. in the KSA about 54% of the total economy is the government. So you do the math and draw the conclusions. If not oil, then who's slaves are they?

the Diaspora abandoned any serious attempt to get Israel back for almost 2 thousand years. If it had not been for a couple of very motivated Zionists at the end of the 1800's you would have missed the boat completly.

Which is neither a fact nor a point. As you incessantly complain, there is NO statute of limitations on someone's desire for something or other. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

But on a more mature and thoughtful level - who cares? What is that point of that? Do you think or imagine that any country can be uninvented? Do you think the path to Palestinian domination is through considering that Israel either does not or should not exist? Show me where for example the French have to JUSTIFY the existance of France following the revolution? Show me any country that must make a case to the justification of it's own existance.

The fact is, Israel is a country, now.

Last but not least you let your Jewbaiting mask slip a little there. The Diaspora did not "abandon its efforts......" It was denied its efforts. Be very careful the words you chose else we will be forced to conclude that the Palestinians by lack of their success must have abandoned their efforts too.

The fact is that as Arabs living in the locality of Palestine (lets say specifically WB and G) they are entitled to rights to the land. These rights have priority over something which happened thousands of years ago. 99 percent of the world believes this but you seem to have a problem with the bleeding obvious.

This is a straw man - and quite a silly one. Why go back 'thousands of years' instead of merely 40? Why not maintain they should have had a state in 1966? or 65? When did nationalism suddenly become a prority for the Palestinians?

And let me ask you this which is my routine question. If 9% of the Palestinians can't be Jews then what is YOUR magic number?

Do the maths bright boy. Non Jews lived in Palestine from 10-12,000 years ago. We know this because the worlds oldest continuously inhabitants settlements border Palestine. Jericho, Byblos, Amman. I think the Jews would be lucky to dominate maybe 2,000 years of this time.

Why stop there? Why not go all the way back to prehistory? What about where you live? Where do you live?

You see this is a patently silly and racist approach. And it's one you can never win anyway because you can always find someone, according to your own rules who has a 'superior' claim.

BTW if you insist on plotting bloodlines which is what I think you are doing then are a racist. Yes you are.

Was there anything else or would you like to simply bang your head on the wall now?

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Lets disregard what the rest of the world thinks and just call them oil slaves. What a convenient way to write of the popular views of the gross majority of billions of the worlds people.


Popular views are not necessarily correct, I'm sure you will agree.

People's views are shaped by their self interest. You should agree with this too.

So what's the problem.

And also, when yuo speak of the views of the "majority" of the world's people, I assume you are using the positions of the dictators and tyrants and despots who claim to speak for the billions of their enslaved inhabitants. While some may indeed have a convergence between their own opinions and the positions of their people (in no small part, no doubt, due to propaganda and terror and manipulation - think North Korea, or "Palestine") it is not a valid inference to look at a majority among world leaders and impute that this means a majority of the world's population. It means a majority of the dictators and tyrants and despots. That's it.


the Diaspora abandoned any serious attempt to get Israel back for almost 2 thousand years. If it had not been for a couple of very motivated Zionists at the end of the 1800's you would have missed the boat completly.


it has be said, never abandoned. But beyond that, Jewish nationalism existed FAR before "Palestinian nationalism", which does away with your end of the 1800s bit. And with respect, a majority of "Palestinians" are nothing of the sort, rather they are descendants of Arabs who moved to Palestine from surrounding countries (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, of course, IS Palestine). Why is an Arab who moved to Palestine in the 1930s entitled to self determination as of right, even though he is represented by governemnnts and peoples in other lands, while Jews are not.

And by the way, the Mandate established by the League of Nations established "Palestine" - being Jordan and Israel, as the Jewish National Home. As far as international law goes, its as simple as that.


You say "Today's "Palestinians" are Arabs who happened to live in a certain area. They have no distinctive culture, no distinctive history, claim no historical tribal leaders or heroes, have no distinctive practices setting them off from other Arabs, and so on. " Lets assume it is true. What is your point ?


the point is that the Palestinians are an invented people who were invented for precisely the reason of restricting Jewish sovereignty to as narrow a band as possible, so that future wars to exterminate it would be easier.

They are, in the words of somebody or other, an "anti-people". All of their traits and characteristics and morals and values and goals are defined not by themselves as their own people, but as a counter to what they perceive to be Jewish identity. They have clearly demonstrated over the past few years that they are more interested in destroying Israel than gaining their own independent nation, that they are more interested in inculcating a cult of death among their young people than in building the civil society which is necessary for development and progress, and are more interested in harming the Jews than helping themselves (note the maintenance of the Palestinians in "refugee camps" by both the Arab world and the PLO itself over the past 30 years.

Iarel tried to resettle them in real homes and real villages back in the 70s and 80s, but the opposition from the Palestinaisn and their leadership, who were interested only in maintaining this PR chip and not in the improvement of the lives of these "refugees" prevented Israel from doing so. thus the Palestinaisn got exactly what they wanted - a perpetuation of the sufering of their own people in order to further their war goals vis-a-vis the Israelis.


The fact is that as Arabs living in the locality of Palestine (lets say specifically WB and G) they are entitled to rights to the land.


well, not really. they are entitled to the land whoich they own, of course, and they are entitled to maintain their lease-hold occupation (and I mean occupation in the ordinary, not political sense) of the premises they inhabit and the land they work. However, the vast majority of land in the "west bank" is state owned land, just as it was state owned by the Ottomans and then the British and then (illegally) by the Jordanians. As such, they are not reall entitled to this land as of right. They are entitled to their cities and the land they presently cultivate, just like the Jews were in the 1930s. The state lands can properly be used by Israel without infringing on the rights of those Arabs who live in "Palestine". You want to draw a political boundary based on armistice lines. Why?


These rights have priority over something which happened thousands of years ago. 99 percent of the world believes this but you seem to have a problem with the bleeding obvious.


no, Jewish rights have priority based on the League of Nations Mandate for Plaestine, which was indeed based on this historical right. After WWI, this sort of thing was done all over the world, all over the dissolved Ottoman empire and throughout Eastern Europe. When the world goes to war and tens fo millions die, this sort of thing happens. the ARabs backed the losing side (like in WWII) while the Jews in Palestine backed the allies. Welcome to real life.


Do the maths bright boy. Non Jews lived in Palestine from 10-12,000 years ago. We know this because the worlds oldest continuously inhabitants settlements border Palestine. Jericho, Byblos, Amman. I think the Jews would be lucky to dominate maybe 2,000 years of this time. [/B]

Can you please explain to me why no other nation needs to continuously justify its existence on its ancestral lands while Jews musty constantly do so? There must be some rational reaosn, no? What about the Normans in England? The french in france? The Americans in the US? Thae au=stralians in Australia?

The Arabs EVERYWHERE they live today except Saudi Arabia (if you didn't know, the Arab colonizers sent families with their soldiers so that they could colonize lands - Jews were a majority in "Palestine" until the Arabs colonized it in the 5 or 7 hundreds.)

[Adversary2Arabs]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Your ideas are so childish and immature that you are lucky to get this reply let alone a backlash.


How is anything I said in the least bit "childish" or "immature"?

I see no possible solutions posed by you, so until you pose a viable solution, shut your fckin face.