Jewish Settlements & Ethnic Cleansing

[NewsGuy]

Every so often, I find a comment that is said in the context of another thread, that I think is powerful enough to be the basis of a whole new discussion. This was the case with the following:


Originally posted by ibrodsky
In fact, about 20% of Israel is Arab. Note that the Israeli gov't does not demand that all Arabs leave Israel as part of a peace deal -- as their counterparts on the PA side demand Jews leave the disputed territories. So who is racist?

There are Arab members of Israel's parliament. How many Jews are part of the PA gov't?

Palestinians are racists for demanding a Jew-free Palestine...

ibrodsky brings up a very true and often overlooked fact.

While the international community loves to pressure Israel to forcefully uproot a quarter-million Israelis from part of the Jewish homeland in the West Bank and Gaza, people rarely stop to ask 'why?'

Regardless of whose land it is under UN resolutions, why should there be a requirement to ethnically cleanse the territories of all Jews? Why is it that Israel is required to keep its Muslim citizens while the Arabs are given carte blanche to demand that Jews leave? And, are we seeing the international community sanction a "No Jews Allowed" zone as the basis of a racist Palestinian state?

Opinions are welcome.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
Every so often, I find a comment that is said in the ocntext of another thread, that I think is powerful enough to be the basis of a whole new discussion. This was the case with the following:



ibrodsky brings up a very true and often overlooked fact.

While the international community loves to pressure Israel to forcefully uproot a quarter-million Israelis from part of the Jewish homeland in the West Bank and Gaza, people rarely stop to ask 'why?'

Regardless of whose land it is under UN resolutions, why should there be a requirement to ethnically cleanse the territories of all Jews? Why is it that Israel is required to keep its Muslim citizens while the Arabs are given carte blanche to demand that Jews leave? And, are we seeing the international community sanction a "No Jews Allowed" zone as the basis of a racist Palestinian state?

Opinions are welcome.
Considering Arafat's heritage, this is no surprise. Once a Nazi, always a Nazi. Why do you think that Israel does such a poor job of selling this point to the world? Honestly, sometimes Israel reminds me of the Republican controlled House and Senate here in the US. They had all the right positions, all the right opinions on issues that mattered but couldn't sell it to save their lives. The result was a short lived majority rule. Perhaps hiring a decent PR firm is in order. :D

[Mediocrates]

Yes it doesn't matter what passport they carry - there is no room for Jews in the WB and Gaza to live side by side with any legitimate PLO authority. The PLO has said this for years. They've never said that the settlers could live there as legal Palestinians - no what they've said is "NO Jews Welcome Here".

We need to drag takeo into this to give us his holy justification about how only the Palestinians have a god a given right to hand pick the ethnicity of all the people who live under their oppression.

But it gets better than that - because if you press them they'll tell you as well that Israel must be forced to accept an unlimited number of Palestinians as well. Do the math - the only resolution for all the takeos of the world is a world with no Jewish state, preferably no Jews at all, one could surmise.

It's really rather hopeless to point this out. The UN and EU and all the other kowtowing cowards understand this and blindly nod as part of their scripted part in the Palestinian rapture.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
It's really rather hopeless to point this out. The UN and EU and all the other kowtowing cowards understand this and blindly nod as part of their scripted part in the Palestinian rapture.

I strongly disagree. One thing the Palestinians have learned is that if you repeat a lie often enough -- no matter how outrageous it is -- in time it will stick.

It is time to end The Silence of the Lambs. Just think of how much better the Truth would do if repeated at every opportunity!

What Israel and its supporters must do is say, at every opportunity, that the Palestinians are demanding an ethnically-cleansed West Bank. We must point out that while one million Arabs live within Israel, the PA and its terrorist allies demand a Jew-free West Bank. We must highlight the asymmetry, and ask over and over: based on these demands, who are the racists?

I was amazed when I visited a settlement. This was several years ago; my host explicitly told me that he and his family would be willing to live in a Palestinian state as long as that state granted them full rights as citizens. But no, there is nothing more odious to Palestinian terrorists than Jews living in an Arab country. Well, maybe there is one thing more odious to them... Jewish children who haven't yet been blown to bits.

[ibrodsky]

Actually, it just occurred to me that part of the problem is that we do not make enough use of fashionable words and phrases.

We should emphasize words like: 'ethnic-cleansing', 'intolerant', 'terrorist'. We should keep reminding people that just after the WTC attacks Palestinians celebrated (people have short memories). We must remind people that Arafat jumped to embrace Saddam after he invaded Kuwait. We must remind people that Arafat has an alliance with Iran -- the same Iran that held U.S. Embassy employees hostage for a full year.

And we should keep mentioning the children who are killed and maimed by suicide bombers. And how suicide/homicide bombers always seem to pick the spot with the most children.

I think Israel -- or perhaps an American Jewish group -- should produce a documentary film or TV program that could be called "Shattered Lives: The Sad Tales of Israeli Terrorist Attack Survivors." This documentary would show the people who have been crippled for life. It would show those who are in therapy years later. It would show those who suffered brain damage. And it would include interviews with other family members and how they are trying to cope with this tradgedy.

Note that there have been nearly 500 Israelis killed since the infantifada began. But almost nobody seems to know about the thousands of Israelis who have been maimed for life by these attacks.

[rhodescholar]

"I think Israel -- or perhaps an American Jewish group -- should produce a documentary film
or TV program that could be called "Shattered Lives: The Sad Tales of Israeli Terrorist
Attack Survivors." This documentary would show the people who have been crippled for life.
It would show those who are in therapy years later. It would show those who suffered brain
damage. And it would include interviews with other family members and how they are trying
to cope with this tradgedy."

Wonderful suggestion. I have proposed to some of the groups I belong to that an advertising campaign be undertaken in Europe and the US. It w/consist of commercials where the first 15 seconds wo/b an american talking about thier murderd family member, what they were like, foods they preferred, hopes and dreams, and then the sond 15 seconds (assuming a 30 second commercial) an israeli would do the same. In the background while the person is talking a picture or video of the deceased w/b shown.

[NewsGuy]

Good suggestion.

I hope that the Israeli government produce the spot. Or maybe any of the Jewish "umbrella" organizations would undertake it.

[michael]

ibrodsky is correct that about 20% of Isralei's are Arab. Unfortunately they do not enjoy the same rights as Jewish Israelis. While there are some Arab members of Parliament, 93% of land in Israel is classified as Jewish and is therefore not available for sale or lease to non-Jews.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by michael
ibrodsky is correct that about 20% of Isralei's are Arab. Unfortunately they do not enjoy the same rights as Jewish Israelis. While there are some Arab members of Parliament, 93% of land in Israel is classified as Jewish and is therefore not available for sale or lease to non-Jews.

Totally false Arab propaganda.


The fact is that Israeli Arabs have equal access to land as Jews in more than 80% of all of the land of Israel. The other 20% is owned by the JNF and by private institutions (both Jewish and Arab), which also give Arabs access to the land.

And actually, the vast majority of land in Israel is not avaliable for sale to either Jews or Arabs, but instead, it is leased to both.

On the other hand, Jews (not just Israelis) are prohibited from owning land in Arab countries, out of racism and religious discrimination.

For more on this topic, Click Here (http://www.meforum.org/meq/dec97/safian.shtml).

[JustPat]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
Totally false Arab propaganda.

For more on this topic, Click Here (http://www.meforum.org/meq/dec97/safian.shtml). Excellent article. That is more in line with my understanding of land matters in Israel. Two years ago an associate of mine, not Jewish, not Arab, not even Israeli, bought a property in Israel. The sale was made possible by an Israeli friend making them aware of the availability of the property and helping them with the process of the purchase.

[Vic]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
But almost nobody seems to know about the thousands of Israelis who have been maimed for life by these attacks.
Which sets me off thinking WHY?

[cerulean]

At least 600,000 Jews fled Arab countries in 1948 and thereafter, often losing their property in the process. No offers of compensation have been forthcoming. These people and their descendants have to live somewhere. Is it really that bizarre that Israel would settle some of its citizens in the disputed territories, considering the circumstances?

[droberts1958]

QUOTE While the international community loves to pressure Israel to forcefully uproot a quarter-million Israelis from part of the Jewish homeland in the West Bank and Gaza, people rarely stop to ask 'why?' UN QUOTE

The reason why is very simple and plain to just about every one in the world except perhaps some people in the US and Israel.

The Gaza and West Bank is not Jewish Homeland. Or at least it wasn't until Israel invaded these countries and stole it from the people already living there. Since annexing it would have been too controversial they figure there next best thing is simply to move their people in there and pretend it is theirs. It works on the view that a lie told enough times might have some vestige of credibility eventually.

QUOTE Regardless of whose land it is under UN resolutions, why should there be a requirement to ethnically cleanse the territories of all Jews? Why is it that Israel is required to keep its Muslim citizens while the Arabs are given carte blanche to demand that Jews leave? And, are we seeing the international community sanction a "No Jews Allowed" zone as the basis of a racist Palestinian state? UNQUOTE

Your paragraph beginning "Regardless" is a pretty big "regardless" The reason why the UN resolutions ask Israel to stop all settlements is because the very body by which Israel derives all title to its land also says that Israel does not have title to the WB and Gaza.

The UN is not asking the Jews to leave WB and Gaza but merely asking the Israelis to back to the pre 1967 borders. The world through the UN says that countries who want a bigger back yard shouldn't simply get their army together and take what they want.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by droberts1958

The reason why is very simple and plain to just about every one in the world except perhaps some people in the US and Israel.

The Gaza and West Bank is not Jewish Homeland. Or at least it wasn't until Israel invaded these countries and stole it from the people already living there. Since annexing it would have been too controversial they figure there next best thing is simply to move their people in there and pretend it is theirs. It works on the view that a lie told enough times might have some vestige of credibility eventually.

Does the world agree that all Italians must leave Australia? You seem, like many Palestinians, unwilling to comprehend the difference between living among other people as a minority and ethnic cleansing.

Israel didn't "invade" the West Bank and Gaza. Israel has been under attack since 1948 and captured the West Bank and Gaza from enemies that vowed to "drive the Jews into the sea." If Israel just took this land as you claim, why did Egypt and Jordan make peace with Israel and renounce all claims on this land?

The settlements are on land that was either bought or completely vacant and unused. No one's land was stolen.

It's true that if you tell a lie often enough people start to believe it. Perhaps it's time for you to study the region's history. There were Jews living on the "West Bank" for 3,000 years. The fact that Arabs massacred the entire Jewish community in Hebron in 1929 does not mean that Jews have no right to live there -- except to those who support the Palestinians' ethnic cleansing campaign.


Your paragraph beginning "Regardless" is a pretty big "regardless" The reason why the UN resolutions ask Israel to stop all settlements is because the very body by which Israel derives all title to its land also says that Israel does not have title to the WB and Gaza.

The UN is not asking the Jews to leave WB and Gaza but merely asking the Israelis to back to the pre 1967 borders. The world through the UN says that countries who want a bigger back yard shouldn't simply get their army together and take what they want.

Israel doesn't claim to own the WB and Gaza; they are disputed territory. Israel has offered to give up 97% as part of a peace deal. But the Palestinians rejected it because they demand a) that the number of Arabs living within Israel be doubled, and b) Jews living within the new Palestinian state be completed eradicated.

Your prejudice is exposed when you refer to the "pre 1967 borders." The Arabs did not recognize Israel's borders -- at that time not one Arab state recognized Israel's right to exist. The "borders" you refer to were nothing but a cease-fire line. Had the Arabs recognized and honored the "pre 1967 borders" there would be no dispute over the WB and Gaza today.

Maybe you should look at a map of the region and study history instead of just swallowing anti-Israel propaganda. In 1948 Israel occupied less than 1% of the region. It was Israel's enemies who begrudged Jews their tiny strip of land and have been attacking in an effort to increase the size of their backyard.

Of course, wannabe conquerers always try to justify their aggression. Even Saddam Hussein claimed that historically Kuwait belonged to Iraq and, besides, the U.S. somehow signalled it was OK for him to just take it...

You've decided that Israel's enemies had the right to attack but Israel didn't have the right to defend itself. Israel's enemies (and you) now say Israel must return to the pre '67 borders, but that's not what they said prior to 1967.

The bottomline: There are Jews who are willing to live as a minority with protected rights in a Palestinian state. Your argument is designed to support the racist demand that the West Bank and Gaza be made 100% Jew-free.

[michael]

Originally posted by NewsGuy


Totally false Arab propaganda.


The fact is that Israeli Arabs have equal access to land as Jews in more than 80% of all of the land of Israel. The other 20% is owned by the JNF and by private institutions (both Jewish and Arab), which also give Arabs access to the land.

[/URL].

I'm no expert but this is the opinion of Israel Shahak, former Chairman of the Israeli League for Human Civil Rights;

"What is really surprising is that people so seldom realize that laws of the State of Israel pertaining to the use of land are no different in essence from the rulings of the Safad rabbis. The State of Israel has turned most of the land, whether in Israel or in the West Bank, into "state land." After these lands are defined as owned by the State of Israel they can be leased only to Jews. The right to lease such lands is denied to all non-Jews, without a single exception. This denial is enforced by placing all state lands under the administration of the Jewish National Fund, a branch of the World Zionist Organization, whose racist statutes forbid their lease or any other use to non-Jews"
"We need to recognize that in Israel the real issue is discrimination not only against the Palestinians (including those who serve in the Israeli army, police and Shabak), but against all non-Jews. This discrimination has the same character as that which the anti-Semites want to apply against the Jews"

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael


I'm no expert but this is the opinion of Israel Shahak, former Chairman of the Israeli League for Human Civil Rights;



The late Israel Shahak discovered there is a large market for a Jew willing to write books and travel around the world to denounce Jews, Israel, and Judaism. He is a favorite on militant Islam, white power, and neo-Nazi Web sites.

Just do a search of Israel Shahak on Yahoo! or any other major portal. You can find quotes from Shahak exposing the truth about the Jewish "religion" (their quote marks -- not mine) alongside the totally fabricated anti-semitic comments of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. You can find Shahak on Klu Klux Klansman David Duke's Web site. He is also a favorite of militant Islam sites like Radio Islam that are brimming with anti-semitism and conspiracy theories (e.g., about how Jews control all of Western media, banks, and governments).

I can also present quotes from Arabs who are anti-Palestinian and Muslims who criticize Islam. But the existence of such people does not prove or disprove anything. Issues still need to be discussed and arguments decided on their merits.

[rhodescholar]

#1-some info for those here who might be interested:

"At least 600,000 Jews fled Arab countries in 1948 and thereafter, often losing their property in
the process. No offers of compensation have been forthcoming. These people and their
descendants have to live somewhere. Is it really that bizarre that Israel would settle some of its
citizens in the disputed territories, considering the circumstances?"

FYI, an org in NYC called the American Sephardi Federation is undertaking a 1-2 year long project to calculate the exact amount of losses of jewish land and property stolen from them by the 22 arab league nations who expelled them in the late 1940s forward.

#2 - Regarding Michaels amusing and utterly false posts above, let me explain who i am. A totally secular Jew, who supports the annexation of the West bank, i have yet to hear even a pathetic argument from the anti-israeli/anti-semites (Michael sounds like both) that can address this one point about judea and Samaria:

Since Israel appropriated the land as a consequence of a DEFENSIVE war, what reason is there, besides 2 spurious resolutions from a UN of 188 countries (now189 with the Swiss) - 57 of them muslim voting as a single bloc, even when they dont really support the position to give up this land?

There has never been any international law requiring an attacked nation to give up territiories won in a defensive war. PERIOD. and dont even start with the "Israel struck first ****," because if you do, i will consider you a pure arab propagandist, and not worthy of further attention nor posts. For those unsure of the facts of the 67 war, please read Michael Oren's superb new book: "Six Days". I should add that if u r in NYC, he will be at a Makor book signing on June 11th.

I am not a religious fanatic who says "G-d gave us the land." No, my argument for retaining and annexing the land is purely strategic and political, and has NEVER, EVER been refuted, by anyone, at any time.

#3 - regarding the second-class status of Arabs in israel, another lie fabricated by michael, a personal acquaintance of mine just so happens to be the Honourable Judge Abd Elrahman Zu'Bi, an Acting Supreme Court Judge, Vice President, District Nazareth in Israel. Sounds pretty important to me.

[elke]

if u r in NYC, he will be at a Makor book signing on June 11th.

Where and when?

[L@mplighterM]

I'm including a condensed version of the Oslo II Accord in my post.

Arafag agreed to the conditions but like a schizophrenic he changed his mind. On one hand he's the Palestinians exalted democratically elected leader and on the other he's a puppet of Iraq and Iran.

Several hundred lost lives later we find supposed humiliated suicide bombers and/or shooters embarking on their deadly mission against Jews in the settlements.


OSLO II AND THE END OF 242
The idea behind 242 was 'Land for Peace'
Oslo II seems to mean 'No Peace for No Land'
Oslo II creates 3 Zones:
* Zone A- The Palestinian Authority (PA) has full control. This zone is the municipal areas of towns populated exclusively by Palestinians.
* Zone B- The region of "autonomy" where the PA administers Palestinian villages under overall Israeli "security control." Zone B is a collection of scattered sections, about 100 of them according to Israeli maps.
* Zone C- Under total Israeli control. Zone C includes all Jewish settlements.
* A fourth Zone is Jerusalem which is assigned to Israeli control including Arab East Jerusalem and areas beyond.
Land Area:
Zone A= 1-3%
Zone B= 30%
Zone C=70%
30% of Gaza will be held by Israel
[Sources differ on exact figures but not much from those quoted here.]
In 1988 Yitzhak Rabin called for Israeli controll of 40% of the West Bank and Gaza. Oslo II doubles it!
Oslo II (the agreement signed in November 1995) requires that the Palestinian Council elected in January 1996 must recognize the "legal rights of Israelis related to Government and Absentee land located in areas under the territorial jurisdiction of the Council."
As Professor Chomsky notes (Z Magizine, January 1996, p.38): "In effect, the PA (Palestine National Authority) therefore accepts the legality of already existing Jewish settlements and any further ones that Israel may choose to construct, and recognizes Israeli sovereignty over parts of the West Bank that Israel decides to designate as state and absentee lands (unilaterally, as in the past): up to 90% of Area B, according to "well-informed Palestinian sources" cited in the Report on Israeli Settlement, an estimate only, because the ruling authorities do not release information.
By incorporating these provisions, Oslo II rescinds the position of virtually the entire world that the settlements are illegal and that Israel has no claim to the territories acquired by force in 1967. Oslo II reaffirms the basic principle of Oslo I: UN resolution 242 of November 1967, the basic framework of Middle East diplomacy, is dead and buried.


I think the agreement is self explanatory to the point where the WORLD recognized the right of the Jewish Settlements to exist. It further reinforces UN Resolution 242 that clearly stipulates that Israel has the right to establish secure and defensible borders.


Part Interpretation of UN Resolution 242
The resolution does not make Israeli withdrawal a prerequisite for Arab action. Moreover, it does not specify how much territory Israel is required to give up. The Security Council did not say Israel must withdraw from "all the" territories occupied after the Six-Day war. This was quite deliberate. The Soviet delegate wanted the inclusion of those words and said that their exclusion meant "that part of these territories can remain in Israeli hands." The Arab states pushed for the word "all" to be included, but this was rejected. They nevertheless asserted that they would read the resolution as if it included the word "all." The British Ambassador who drafted the approved resolution, Lord Caradon, declared after the vote: "It is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear."
This literal interpretation was repeatedly declared to be the correct one by those involved in drafting the resolution. On October 29, 1969, for example, the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons the withdrawal envisaged by the resolution would not be from "all the territories." When asked to explain the British position later, Lord Caradon said: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."



Lord Caradon drafted the final draft of 242 and the UN approved that. Above he also states his reasoning for the wording in the resolution.

I would also like to add that there never was a firmly established border in 1948.

[cerulean]

Here's another article opposed to the concept that the settlements were a bad idea. It also mentions how expensive evacuating them would be.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110001769

[JustPat]

Originally posted by cerulean At least 600,000 Jews fled Arab countries in 1948 and thereafter, often losing their property in the process. No offers of compensation have been forthcoming. These people and their descendants have to live somewhere. Is it really that bizarre that Israel would settle some of its citizens in the disputed territories, considering the circumstances? So there's the solution! A trade off of property for property ... "Land for Land", now that makes more sense. The result should be that peace would ensue and the land issue would be resolved. But...
Is it about land? "I don't thin so, Lucy"

[JustPat]

Originally posted by droberts1958 The Gaza and West Bank is not Jewish Homeland. Or at least it wasn't until Israel invaded these countries and stole it from the people already living there. Since annexing it would have been too controversial they figure there next best thing is simply to move their people in there and pretend it is theirs. It works on the view that a lie told enough times might have some vestige of credibility eventually. So, following your rationale, are you ready to pack up and move to , say the UK, and return Austrailia to the Aboriginees? So you think the US will graciously return to the various fatherlands and let the "Native Americans" have it back? Ok everybody, back in the boat! Get real. Lands possessed by the course of conquest are lands kept by spoils of war. It was the Arabs who attacked Israel, remember. If they wanted to avoid the loss, they should have avoided the risk. And not only that, they haven't learned their lesson. Now they just hide behind the skirts of "Auntie UNSC" and let them do the dirty work.


Originally posted by droberts1958 Quoting NewsGuy: "Regardless of whose land it is under UN resolutions, why should there be a requirement to ethnically cleanse the territories of all Jews? Why is it that Israel is required to keep its Muslim citizens while the Arabs are given carte blanche to demand that Jews leave? And, are we seeing the international community sanction a 'No Jews Allowed' zone as the basis of a racist Palestinian state?

Your paragraph beginning "Regardless" is a pretty big "regardless" The reason why the UN resolutions ask Israel to stop all settlements is because the very body by which Israel derives all title to its land also says that Israel does not have title to the WB and Gaza.

The UN is not asking the Jews to leave WB and Gaza but merely asking the Israelis to back to the pre 1967 borders. The world through the UN says that countries who want a bigger back yard shouldn't simply get their army together and take what they want. Did ya miss the point here? It wasn't about the title to the land. The question posed is, why do the Israelis have to play by different rules than the Palestinians? So there are Jews in the WB and Gaza, big deal. Why do they have to be denied the right to live where they please because some PA whiner hates Jews? Bigger question for me here is, why are you defending Palestinian bigots?

[JustPat]

Originally posted by michael I'm no expert ... Did you not read posting #9? How about my posting in response to it? Come on, do your homework!

[JustPat]

In truth, I'm curious, what percentage of the settlements are built on land that was in use by Arabs at the time? How much of the land cultivated by settlers was under cultivation by Arabs?

[michael]

Originally posted by ibrodsky


I can also present quotes from Arabs who are anti-Palestinian and Muslims who criticize Islam. But the existence of such people does not prove or disprove anything. Issues still need to be discussed and arguments decided on their merits.

Yes, arguments decided on merit would be fantastic, but what you did in the paragraphs before the one quoted above was exactly the opposite of that - personally attacking a man who voiced a dissenting opinion and completely ignoring the argument he put foward. As for the man himself he had no need of finding a living in attacking Israel. He had lived and worked in the Middle east from 1945 till his death last year and was a Professor of Chemistry at the Hebrew University as well as founding the Israeli League for Human Civil Rights. He was a man who spoke the truth as he saw it, no matter how others may have chosen to mis-use his work.

[michael]

Originally posted by JustPat
So, following your rationale, are you ready to pack up and move to , say the UK, and return Austrailia to the Aboriginees? So you think the US will graciously return to the various fatherlands and let the "Native Americans" have it back? Ok everybody, back in the boat! Get real. Lands possessed by the course of conquest are lands kept by spoils of war.

Well as a matter of fact - yes! Today is the tenth anninversary of the Mabo decision which recognised that Aborigines had proir possession of the land, before Europeans arrived. This is part of a process over the last 40 years which has seen land returned to Aboriginal Austrlainas in recognition that previous disposession was illegal. It's been a long slow process but Israel should note that the courts will overturn what was 200 years of past practice and belief.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael


Well as a matter of fact - yes! Today is the tenth anninversary of the Mabo decision which recognised that Aborigines had proir possession of the land, before Europeans arrived. This is part of a process over the last 40 years which has seen land returned to Aboriginal Austrlainas in recognition that previous disposession was illegal. It's been a long slow process but Israel should note that the courts will overturn what was 200 years of past practice and belief.

And who had prior possession of Israel, Judea, and Samaria?

If you think Australian land should be returned to the Aborigines, then why shouldn't all of ancient Israel be returned to the Jews?

[Mediocrates]

Yes yes and we have a native american tribe here in Connecticut suing the state for one third of the state and everything contained within that one third. While it's an interesting intellectual exercise it won't lead anywhere no matter how badly you feel for the treatment of native americans in the US. Why? because you simply can't ignore the plight of the people who live there now. While it may give you warm fuzzies to pretend that justice is restored by kicking 2 million suburbanites out of their homes, it is not. That is just another face on reverse descrimination. If you think not, then you ignore the realities of civil war. Ask the Biafrans, they'll give you a quick lesson.

[Mediocrates]

"The late Israel Shahak discovered there is a large market for a Jew willing to write books and travel around the world to denounce Jews, Israel, and Judaism. He is a favorite on militant Islam, white power, and neo-Nazi Web sites"



-the patron saint of takeo

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael


Yes, arguments decided on merit would be fantastic, but what you did in the paragraphs before the one quoted above was exactly the opposite of that - personally attacking a man who voiced a dissenting opinion and completely ignoring the argument he put foward. As for the man himself he had no need of finding a living in attacking Israel. He had lived and worked in the Middle east from 1945 till his death last year and was a Professor of Chemistry at the Hebrew University as well as founding the Israeli League for Human Civil Rights. He was a man who spoke the truth as he saw it, no matter how others may have chosen to mis-use his work.

You did not present an argument, in fact, you declined to present an argument ("I'm no expert"). You responded to NewsGuy's post proving that the claim Israel does not sell or lease land to non-Jews is a big fat lie simply by quoting Shahak repeating the lie.

Are you here to discuss the issues, or just quote others discussing the issues? Shahak lived in the Middle East since 1945, taught Chemistry, and founded a miniscule "human rights" group that apparently no longer exists. What, does this make him the final authority?

[JustPat]

Originally posted by michael Well as a matter of fact - yes! Today is the tenth anninversary of the Mabo decision which recognised that Aborigines had proir possession of the land, before Europeans arrived. This is part of a process over the last 40 years which has seen land returned to Aboriginal Austrlainas in recognition that previous disposession was illegal. It's been a long slow process but Israel should note that the courts will overturn what was 200 years of past practice and belief. If you are as ready as you claim, are you packing? Have you given - given, not sold - any property you own to the Aborigines? Have you found a refugee camp to go to in the UK? And, of course, your neighbors are going with you, right?

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by ibrodsky

I think Israel -- or perhaps an American Jewish group -- should produce a documentary film or TV program that could be called "Shattered Lives: The Sad Tales of Israeli Terrorist Attack Survivors." This documentary would show the people who have been crippled for life. It would show those who are in therapy years later. It would show those who suffered brain damage. And it would include interviews with other family members and how they are trying to cope with this tradgedy.

Note that there have been nearly 500 Israelis killed since the infantifada began. But almost nobody seems to know about the thousands of Israelis who have been maimed for life by these attacks.

Here’s a link to something that’s similar to the “Shattered Lives” video you’re proposing.

http://server12.castup.net/mfa/


I’m not absolutely certain if the videos at that site were used at a seminar at a nearby synagogue but the description sounded similar.

[droberts1958]

Justpat

Thankyou for the honesty.

No doubt this quote of yours sums of the views of many of the pro-israelis in this forum. The fact is that there is no other way to justify the presence of Israel in the West Bank and Gaza.

QUOTE Get real. Lands possessed by the course of conquest are lands kept by spoils of war. END QUOTE

The spoils of conquest. If you want it, its easy. Get a big army (or get given all the really neat weapons from Uncle Sam) (or even better get nuclear weapons and quietly threaten the region) and then take what ever you want.

Now let me think who else thought this century that it was OK to use force to take get a bigger backyard. Oh yes Hitler is probably the prime example of why force and a bigger army is no longer acceptable and yet you are happy to follow in the footsteps of force. Good thinking!

Clearly you are not aware that the era of colonisation is over. Infact it ended probably over a hundred years ago and certainly was pronounced dead and buried when England said it could not work out one of its old colonies in the Middle East and asked the UN to adjudicate.


QUOTE It was the Arabs who attacked Israel, remember. END QUOTE

HISTORY LESSON.

When Israel fought the 1967 war and took over the land of various of its immediate neighbours it attacked them first. This is quoted in all the history books except the ones you read from the looks of things.


QUOTE Did ya miss the point here? It wasn't about the title to the land. The question posed is, why do the Israelis have to play by different rules than the Palestinians? So there are Jews in the WB and Gaza, big deal. Why do they have to be denied the right to live where they please because some PA whiner hates Jews? END QUOTE

Let me make this as simple as possible as clearly you have problems with matters of the slightest complexity. The reason why the Israelis have to play by different rules than the palestinians is because various arabs were always living in the area now Israel whereas the Israeli settlers stole through their government land from the Palestinians over the last 30 years. Every government in the world distinguishes between legitimately owning the land versus stealing / squatting on it. Why is this so hard for you to understand.

QUOTE Bigger question for me here is, why are you defending Palestinian bigots END QUOTE

Clearly the only bigot here is you.

At least you are balanced. You have a chip on both shoulders.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
Here’s a link to something that’s similar to the “Shattered Lives” video you’re proposing.

http://server12.castup.net/mfa/


I’m not absolutely certain if the videos at that site were used at a seminar at a nearby synagogue but the description sounded similar. Excellent video. I know the videos of those who are Palestinian victims is equally moving, but no one seems to get the Israeli side out. Thanks for the link.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by droberts1958
Justpat

Thankyou for the honesty.

No doubt this quote of yours sums of the views of many of the pro-israelis in this forum. The fact is that there is no other way to justify the presence of Israel in the West Bank and Gaza.


Well maybe dripping sarcasm works in the students' lounge where you hold court with your cadre of mouth breathers but ignorance and arrogance are not actually the same thing as wisdom and insight. There are at least a dozen people here, some of which wish the end of Israel as feverishly as you do and yet they know the facts where of they speak.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by droberts1958 Justpat

Thankyou for the honesty.

No doubt this quote of yours sums of the views of many of the pro-israelis in this forum. The fact is that there is no other way to justify the presence of Israel in the West Bank and Gaza.

QUOTE Get real. Lands possessed by the course of conquest are lands kept by spoils of war. END QUOTE

The spoils of conquest. If you want it, its easy. Get a big army (or get given all the really neat weapons from Uncle Sam) (or even better get nuclear weapons and quietly threaten the region) and then take what ever you want.

Now let me think who else thought this century that it was OK to use force to take get a bigger backyard. Oh yes Hitler is probably the prime example of why force and a bigger army is no longer acceptable and yet you are happy to follow in the footsteps of force. Good thinking! Obviously you are an abstract thinker in that you miss the point in front of you. The very incident you cite proves the point. Had Hitler been able to hold the land he conquered, Germany and the world would have been a much different place today and there would be no Jews and no real Christians. Thank G-d that it was not so. But, this is what war is about. People don't go to war to broaden their philosophical reach, they do it to eliminate what they oppose. And it isn't about who has teh biggest and best guns either. Hitler had the Allies out gunned, he had better technology, and he had the momentum to take over the world. The allies had Rees Howells, a clear advantage! History is full of accounts of the testimony of war and conquest. You really should read it some time.


Originally posted by droberts1958 Clearly you are not aware that the era of colonisation is over. Infact it ended probably over a hundred years ago and certainly was pronounced dead and buried when England said it could not work out one of its old colonies in the Middle East and asked the UN to adjudicate. There is a big difference between colonization and conquest. Colonization is the expansion of one's territories by duplicating yourself in remote locations. Conquest is the taking of land through the process of battle. Once that land has been taken, settling it, possessing it is the natural result. You don't conquer land so that you can leave it fallow and wasting. Israel did gain the WB and Gaza by conquest, but theirs was a defensive war. The Arabs should not have sought to take what little land Israel had been granted by the UK and UN.


Originally posted by JustPat It was the Arabs who attacked Israel, remember. [QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by droberts1958 HISTORY LESSON.

When Israel fought the 1967 war and took over the land of various of its immediate neighbours it attacked them first. This is quoted in all the history books except the ones you read from the looks of things. [QUOTE] First of all, I am not inclined to limit my reading to Palestinian and Arab publications. Secondly, you would do well to do your homework before you post this nonsense here.

History Lesson:
http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/100/maps/pos.html
http://www.mideastweb.org/BriefHistory.htm#Modern%20History
(Please note that Syria and Egypt both committed acts fo war before Israel fired a shot.)
http://i-cias.com/e.o/israel_5.htm
http://www.worldrover.com/history/israel_history.html
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/israel_history.asp
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+il0034)
http://www.multied.com/Mideast/sixday.html

This will at least get you started.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JustPat Did ya miss the point here? It wasn't about the title to the land. The question posed is, why do the Israelis have to play by different rules than the Palestinians? So there are Jews in the WB and Gaza, big deal. Why do they have to be denied the right to live where they please because some PA whiner hates Jews? [QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Originally posted by droberts1958 Let me make this as simple as possible as clearly you have problems with matters of the slightest complexity. The reason why the Israelis have to play by different rules than the palestinians is because various arabs were always living in the area now Israel whereas the Israeli settlers stole through their government land from the Palestinians over the last 30 years. Every government in the world distinguishes between legitimately owning the land versus stealing / squatting on it. Why is this so hard for you to understand. So are you saying that no Jews lived in the land in that period? Are you denying the unbroken habitation by Jews in the land of the Bible? Have you any history books written by other than Arabs?


Originally posted by droberts1958 Clearly the only bigot here is you.

At least you are balanced. You have a chip on both shoulders. Far from being bigoted, I am very fair. It is not the Palestinian people as a whole I have a problem with. It is the Palestinian Authority, the PLO, and the likes of Yasser Arafat. It gets a little muddied in a discussion like this because of a lack of labels - Palestinian A, Palestinian B, etc.
No chip on my shoulders, just the refusal to accept that Israel should have to play be different rules just because the majority population is Jewish.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by droberts1958
No doubt this quote of yours sums of the views of many of the pro-israelis in this forum. The fact is that there is no other way to justify the presence of Israel in the West Bank and Gaza.

Please don't put words in our mouths. You may be full of yourself, but you cannot read our minds.

The presence of Israel in the West Bank and Gaza is due to one thing and one thing only: Israel's Arab enemies' fixation since 1948 with destroying Israel.

Israel tried to give away 97% of the West Bank and Gaza in 2000, but has been forced to revisit population centers granted complete self-rule because the Palestinians have embraced the evil practice of slaughtering women, children, and elderly civilians. The fact that you sympathize with people who responded to a peace proposal by purposely killing Jewish children speaks volumes about your righteousness.


The spoils of conquest. If you want it, its easy. Get a big army (or get given all the really neat weapons from Uncle Sam) (or even better get nuclear weapons and quietly threaten the region) and then take what ever you want.

Yes, it ain't pretty, but this is the mindset of many Arab and Islamic countries. No Israeli leader has ever threatened a neighboring country with nuclear weapons. Yet Iranian government officials have recently and publicly stated that if they had nuclear weapons (and it is well known they are working towards that goal) they could settle everything by wiping out Israel.


Now let me think who else thought this century that it was OK to use force to take get a bigger backyard. Oh yes Hitler is probably the prime example of why force and a bigger army is no longer acceptable and yet you are happy to follow in the footsteps of force. Good thinking!

That was last century. And who else deserves to be on the list? Saddam Hussein snapped up Kuwait -- does that count? Notice that when he was evicted he launched missiles at Israel. No doubt the entire Iraq-Kuwait conflict was a Zionist plot...

How about Syria's Assad? Or do you, like so many others, completely ignore the fact that Lebanon is occupied by Syria? It's amazing how the world howled for 18 years about Israeli occupation of a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, and now we have Hizbullah attacks to remind us that it was justified, but we hear barely a whisper about Syrian occupation of Lebanon's population centers. (Reason: hypocrisy.)


Clearly you are not aware that the era of colonisation is over. Infact it ended probably over a hundred years ago and certainly was pronounced dead and buried when England said it could not work out one of its old colonies in the Middle East and asked the UN to adjudicate.

You throw around words spoon fed to you by Palestinian supporters, but do you know what they mean? Colonialism was the practice of taking over countries or areas mainly for economic exploitation. Actually, Israel doesn't control industry or commerce in Gaza or the West Bank. In fact, aside from military incursions lasting an average of a few days, the Palestinians rule all of their own population centers. When they stop mass murdering Israelis (I know: a very minor infraction compared to the "terrorism" of checkpoints) the incursions will stop. They have no one but themselves to blame.


When Israel fought the 1967 war and took over the land of various of its immediate neighbours it attacked them first. This is quoted in all the history books except the ones you read from the looks of things.

Your own words reveal more than you intended. Yes, all of the history books say Israel "attacked them first." If you actually bother to read the history, you will see that Israel was living under constant guerrila raids; that Egypt closed off Israel's shipping lanes (an act of war, whether you admit it or not); Arab countries were massing their armies; and Arab leaders were publicly declaring their intention to "drive the Jews into the sea" in the very near future.

When you are outnumbered and outgunned 20:1, and face an enemy that is animated by extreme racial & religious hatred, you better launch a pre-emptive strike if you want any hope of surviving.

Show me one history book that denies Israel launched a pre-emptive strike. You think you can just make this stuff up...

[Wolf-66]

I cant believe im reading this, as most people know and his has been said by the Jewish goverment for at least 20 years and they have said " we took the WB and the gaza as a buffer zone " this already tells you that they are prepared for anything that the arabs wabt to throw at them...so yes they have taken land that does not belong to them.

One thing that i dont see people say is that the world belongs to everybody.....and live by the saying "i'm oke, your oke "...think about this and then when you get to talk to someone that does not see eye to eye with and you say that to your self i bet you have a more productive confersation then you would think....i have had talks with all kinds of people on this earth and i have had good disussions with them and as long as they felt that they where left to there saying and so was i we had the best talks that someone could think of and harsh things where said..but there was a mutual respect and after these talks 2 people left each others company and both had new ideas and understanding and have GROWN

"Living in borders will make you think in borders"

people start thinking for yourself and not what has been told or said by someone else, what you see with you own eyes you can count on as being 100% truth, anything said by someone else in power ALWAYS have a hidden adgenda and there are no two ways about it.

When are we giong to see our selfs as human beings and stop looking at regions and color it is so small minded.

We can take example from childeren they dont look at color, race, region ect ect, they just see you and that is it.

Please people start living and stop fighting, because in every argument everybody is right in there own way, it is easy to start a fight BUT stopping is very very hard, its easy to piont at sonmeone else can you piont that same finger at yourself and ask the same questions at yourself?

A wise man said a long time ago " love thy neighbor " and " terat people the way YOU want to be treated "


think about it,

Thx for your time

[ibrodsky]

Today Islamic Jihad blew up a bus killing at least 14 Israelis.

I think Israel should take the hint and treat Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and the PA the way they want to be treated.

[droberts1958]

Justpat / ibrodsky

Some Response.

The start of the 1967 War. I am prepared to concede quite readily that Israel has a technical argument that it did not start the war. Frankly I would agree that Israel probably would have been attacked if it did not act first. Pre-emptive attacks are very dangerous however because they remove the opportunity for last minute negotiating which can avoid war. On Israel's argument WW3 would have started if Russia had bombed the US when the US blockaded Cuba.

The Israeli argument that it has some title to the land because of unbroken habitation or continuous connection with the land is the most pathetic of arguments that can be put together. For almost two thousand years right up until the 1900s present Israel had a tiny Jewish minority. If the only relationship with the land is a tiny minority then it is not close to enough any claim to the land. For thousands of years the people who lived there were Arabs a small fraction of whom believed in Judaism. This is claim for nothing. What twisted argument can justify the preference for the wishes of a tiny minority over the substantial majority for thousands of years. The only reason why Israel had a more sizeable minority right up until the 1940s was becaue of immigration which the colonial rulers allowed but which the native people hated.

Yes I concede that Israel has never openly and directly threatened anyone with nuclear weapons. Of course it hasn't. It would be a PR disaster and it has no need to. All it needs to say and has said is that if if is attacked with chemical weapons it can respond with a massive counter strike. Wink Wink. The fact is that it has the weapons and by their very production and existance they are a threat. Everyone knows this and nothing more needs to be said.

Colonisation was always a more polite word than conquest but since you seems to happy to call a spade a spade, yes there is a massive problem with anyone who believes that conquest by simply having a bigger or better equipped army is a legitimate way to acqire a bigger or even more secure backyard. Justpat you seem very comfortable with this idea that the world is actually ruled by who ever has the most dangerous armed forces and they can take what they want. ibrodsky, you seem not so keen with this notion that the only thing that stands in the way of taking what ever you want is the army of those you oppose. Nice to hear it.

I also strongly oppose the Syrian occupation of Lebanon.

Israelis are always quick to quote all the innocent Jewish lives which have been lost in the lastest conflict but always slow to quote the fact that twice as many Palestinian lives have been lost. It is a terrible tradjedy on both sides. Suicide bombings are the only means to bring real pressure for a resolution and they don't have tanks or planes to do their killing for them. The reason why land for peace makes so much sense is a simple mathamatical equation which most Jewish people are too emotionally involved to see.

Israel can never stop suicide bombings because when someone is prepared to kill themselves it is easy to take others with you if they can live and travel amongst you. The group of people prepared to do this terrible thing and kill themselves and others is a group which decreases as Israel picks off numbers in its WB and G incursions and increases as Palestinians get so pissed off being treated like second class animals that they figure they would prefer to die rather than continue living subjogated lives.

My view is that the more the Israelis attack the WB and G to get the "terrorists" even more Palestinians fall into the group of totally desparate suicide ready Palestinians. The pool is infact getting larger.

There is only one answer proper respectful peace. Not the 97% peace and leaving some settlements and external boundaries patrolled by Israel and an inability to arm itself. Of course Arafat rejected that not because he didn't want peace but because the peace being offered was not enough.

If you could be absolutely guaranteed peace would you sacrifice the land?

[Mediocrates]

Well I'm sure that makes for good PR. Here's how it works


1) All the Arab worlds problems are related to the Palestinian cause.
2) All the Palestinian cause is related to the Israelis
3) All the Israelis' effect is related to 'occupation'
4) All the Arab world's problems are related to the 'occupation'


Which of course is utter trash.

Your argument that resisting terrorism is never 100% successful therefore any nation should simply resign and quit and give in to the demands of terrorists is also utter trash.

Israelis are 'occupying' Israel. That they will give away one third of their own country to appease the unappeasible and placate the implacable is a mistake they will also live to regret.


No one. Not one single person who says "occupation won't guaranty security and safety" can look me in the eye and say with a straight face and tell me that non-occupation will guaranty safety and security either. Which means that it has NEVER been about occupation at all.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by droberts1958


The start of the 1967 War. I am prepared to concede quite readily that Israel has a technical argument that it did not start the war. Frankly I would agree that Israel probably would have been attacked if it did not act first. Pre-emptive attacks are very dangerous however because they remove the opportunity for last minute negotiating which can avoid war. On Israel's argument WW3 would have started if Russia had bombed the US when the US blockaded Cuba.

This is why some rudimentary knowledge of history is important: in 1967 not one Arab country recognized Israel's right to exist. Israel's Arab enemies, like Hamas and Islamic Jihad today, were absolutely opposed to any negotiations with Israel.

For example, if you read Conor Cruise O'Brien's book, The Siege, you will see that Arab representatives to the U.N. ritualistically refused to acknowledge the presence of the Israeli representative.

There was no one to negotiate with. War was certain. Israel could only hope to win by attacking first. Thus, Israel was right to launch a pre-emptive strike.


The Israeli argument that it has some title to the land because of unbroken habitation or continuous connection with the land is the most pathetic of arguments that can be put together. For almost two thousand years right up until the 1900s present Israel had a tiny Jewish minority. If the only relationship with the land is a tiny minority then it is not close to enough any claim to the land. For thousands of years the people who lived there were Arabs a small fraction of whom believed in Judaism. This is claim for nothing. What twisted argument can justify the preference for the wishes of a tiny minority over the substantial majority for thousands of years. The only reason why Israel had a more sizeable minority right up until the 1940s was becaue of immigration which the colonial rulers allowed but which the native people hated.

Are you talking about Israel or the disputed territories? If you are referring to the disputed territories, Israel doesn't claim "title" to most of the West Bank and Gaza. The argument is simply that Jews should be able to live in Judea and Samaria, and that the Arab majority does not have the right to cleanse the area of Jews.

If you are talking about Israel, yes immigration played a major role. So did emigration from Arab countries that oppressed Jews. However, land was not systematically taken from Arabs. The partition proposed two states based on demographics. A more contiguous country resulted when the Arabs rejected partition and started a war to crush the new Jewish state.


Yes I concede that Israel has never openly and directly threatened anyone with nuclear weapons. Of course it hasn't. It would be a PR disaster and it has no need to. All it needs to say and has said is that if if is attacked with chemical weapons it can respond with a massive counter strike. Wink Wink. The fact is that it has the weapons and by their very production and existance they are a threat. Everyone knows this and nothing more needs to be said.

How is Israel "threatening" other countries by possessing weapons it does not use, display, or even talk about? You seem vaguely cognizant that Israel has developed powerful weapons as a last resort for self-defense. This is not a "wink, wink" threat.

Yet you completely ignore the parade of threats and anti-semitism spewed by Arab media for 50+ years. Why is that?


Colonisation was always a more polite word than conquest but since you seems to happy to call a spade a spade, yes there is a massive problem with anyone who believes that conquest by simply having a bigger or better equipped army is a legitimate way to acqire a bigger or even more secure backyard. Justpat you seem very comfortable with this idea that the world is actually ruled by who ever has the most dangerous armed forces and they can take what they want. ibrodsky, you seem not so keen with this notion that the only thing that stands in the way of taking what ever you want is the army of those you oppose. Nice to hear it.


Nonsense. You are implying that Israel has fought not to defend itself, but to acuqire a "bigger backyard." This is obviously false. Israel offered to give back all of the occupied land after the '67 war, but the Arab response was (in effect) "No deals with the Zionist entity." Israel gave back 90% of the captured territory when it made peace with Egypt. Israel offered to give back 97% to the "Palestinians" if they would live in peace -- an offer they rejected.

You pass judgment on our supposed motivations while ignoring indisputable facts.


I also strongly oppose the Syrian occupation of Lebanon.

I'm glad to hear you have some sense of balance. Now connect the dots. Do you see that countries like Iraq and Syria are genuine examples of countries bent on conquest, and that not coincidentally they are among Israel's most implacable foes?


Israelis are always quick to quote all the innocent Jewish lives which have been lost in the lastest conflict but always slow to quote the fact that twice as many Palestinian lives have been lost. It is a terrible tradjedy on both sides. Suicide bombings are the only means to bring real pressure for a resolution and they don't have tanks or planes to do their killing for them. The reason why land for peace makes so much sense is a simple mathamatical equation which most Jewish people are too emotionally involved to see.

You are slow to recognize that Palestinians purposely kill Israeli civilians for the "crime" of being Jews. Yes, more Palestinians have died, but they started the war.

Perhaps you would be more satisfied if the number of casualties were equal. This is indeed one Palestinian strategy, as Israel is vastly outnumbered by its enemies. They are willing to throw away millions of Arab lives to destroy Israel (this is what Arafat means by "millions of martyrs for Jerusalem"), just as Iran used "human waves" as a tactic in fighting Iraq.


Israel can never stop suicide bombings because when someone is prepared to kill themselves it is easy to take others with you if they can live and travel amongst you. The group of people prepared to do this terrible thing and kill themselves and others is a group which decreases as Israel picks off numbers in its WB and G incursions and increases as Palestinians get so pissed off being treated like second class animals that they figure they would prefer to die rather than continue living subjogated lives.

Israel can never stop all suicide/homicide bombers, but it can and has reduced the frequency.

Your claim that Israel causes these attacks by defending itself is utter nonsense. Again, Israel offered to trade 97% of the West Bank and Gaza for peace. But as a PA official said publicly during a visit to Lebanon, a Palestinian state is really not the main goal.


My view is that the more the Israelis attack the WB and G to get the "terrorists" even more Palestinians fall into the group of totally desparate suicide ready Palestinians. The pool is infact getting larger.

Killing innocent civilians is not an act of desperation. It is an act of racist hatred and pure evil. Anyone who excuses acts such as invading a child's bedroom and killing a five-year old girl at point blank range is immoral.


There is only one answer proper respectful peace. Not the 97% peace and leaving some settlements and external boundaries patrolled by Israel and an inability to arm itself. Of course Arafat rejected that not because he didn't want peace but because the peace being offered was not enough.


It's amazing (well, not really) that you blame Israel but not the Arab and Islamic groups that absolutely reject any negotiations or peace with "the Zionist entity."

To wit, you demand "peace" but ignore the fact that between Israel and its enemies only one side is opposed to peace on principle.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by droberts1958 The start of the 1967 War. I am prepared to concede quite readily that Israel has a technical argument that it did not start the war. Frankly I would agree that Israel probably would have been attacked if it did not act first. Then you must also concede that they had the right to defend themselves. In defense of their people, these additional lands were garnered in the face of those who sought Israel's demise. And yet, Israel has graciously offered to return the bulk of the land, maintaining a reasonable buffer zone, only to have the Palestinians rebuff any and all offers while never presenting a counter offer. In the latest round of negotiations (see http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/981024/1998102453.html ) the Palestinians refused to agree to the terms outlined, refused to negotiate the terms offered, and refused to offer counter terms. How can peace be achieved in this way? Who was the dhief negotiator? None other than Yasser Arafat.


Originally posted by droberts1958 The Israeli argument that it has some title to the land because of unbroken habitation or continuous connection with the land is the most pathetic of arguments that can be put together. OK, for the sake of argument, let's set this point aside. The UK deeded the initial land to Israel in 1948. Arabs surrounding them immediately sought to steal the land given to Israel by what was recognized as the legal steward of that ground at the time. Israel defended her people and conquerored more land in the process. Defensive possession for the sake of security against a host of nations seeking to eradicate Israel was the outcome of the War of Independance. There was no Palestinian State, the land was won from the surrounding Arab nations. This is a matter of history. If the Palestinians had this claim they make to the land, why was it that it was not levied until the 70's? No state, no land, no rights, no claim made ... what changed? What changed was their utter rejection by their ARAB BROTHERS. "Get those filthy Philitines out of here!" And yet, only Israel is dealt the race card. The Palestinians and all other Arabs may practice bigotry, but Israel must play nice. Where is the justice in that? Israel possessed the land, yes by victory in war. It is now at their discretion as to how to manage it. They have offered 97%, the offer is rejected ... >>> It is not about the land.


Originally posted by droberts1958 Yes I concede that Israel has never openly and directly threatened anyone with nuclear weapons. Of course it hasn't. It would be a PR disaster and it has no need to. All it needs to say and has said is that if if is attacked with chemical weapons it can respond with a massive counter strike. Wink Wink. The fact is that it has the weapons and by their very production and existance they are a threat. Everyone knows this and nothing more needs to be said. I think that is what is called a deterent. Wasn't that behavior perfected by the "super powers"? Let's face it, the boy with the biggest stick who isn't afraid to use it will control the playground. Israel has shown it isn't looking for a fight, but also that it isn't going to back down from one either. I guess the thought of martyrdom is more desireable to the Palestinians than the thought of life. Whatcha gonna do?


Originally posted by droberts1958 Justpat you seem very comfortable with this idea that the world is actually ruled by who ever has the most dangerous armed forces and they can take what they want. It is not a matter of comfort, it is a matter of fact. We live in reality, deal with it. All the idealism and philosophy we can muster won't change the fact that man reverts to the basics to attain his goals. The big dog gets the porch.


Originally posted by droberts1958 Suicide bombings are the only means to bring real pressure for a resolution ... Especially if you don't want to negotiate. If negotiation was a Palestinian option they would have a counter offer at the ready. They do not, they refuse to.


Originally posted by droberts1958 My view is that the more the Israelis attack the WB and G to get the "terrorists" even more Palestinians fall into the group of totally desparate suicide ready Palestinians. The pool is infact getting larger. In this pool, everyone drowns.


Originally posted by droberts1958 There is only one answer proper respectful peace. Not the 97% peace and leaving some settlements and external boundaries patrolled by Israel and an inability to arm itself. Of course Arafat rejected that not because he didn't want peace but because the peace being offered was not enough. IT IS NOT ABOUT THE LAND!


Originally posted by droberts1958 If you could be absolutely guaranteed peace would you sacrifice the land? Can you guarantee the Palestinians will act honorably, honestly, and in good faith. (Wouldn't that be a nice change.)

[Vic]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Well I'm sure that makes for good PR. Here's how it works


1) All the Arab worlds problems are related to the Palestinian cause.
2) All the Palestinian cause is related to the Israelis
3) All the Israelis' effect is related to 'occupation'
4) All the Arab world's problems are related to the 'occupation'

5) All the world's problems are a result of the Israeli occupation. No need to raise a finger about anything else until it ends.

Sounds like a kind of quack psychotherapy, doesn't it? :D

[droberts1958]

Some Response.

Justpat:

YES IT IS ABOUT THE LAND. Saying many times it is not achieves nothing but guaranteeing a violent future for all sides of the argument.

The Palestinian counter offer was reversion completly to the pre 1967 boundaries. Entirely fair.

Arafat was not smart to not further encourage the negotiation process but he was smart to refuse the offer as it was put.

I presume you mean that the UN not the UK deeded the initial land to Israel. If you accept that this gave Israel good title (which I agree it does) then you must also accept what the same body says about the WB and G. Alternately your hypocrisy has no bounds. YES IT IS ABOUT THE LAND.

I see in your world of harsh reality the big dog decides everything and we just have to suck up to live. There are people who seem to agree with you (including various prime-ministers) but fortunately this view of the world is a cynical minority.

In my pool of increasing terrorisms everyone drowns, so you think. In yours we all die a slow death but its not just those in the pool and its our kids and kid's kids too.

At the very end of it all you are a coward. My question at the end you did not answer. You prefer to simple fob it off with a question of your own. Answer mine first and I will answer yours.

It has always been about the land. Even when the Zionists started encouraging the immigration in the late 1800's it was about the land and the power that would go along with it. It still is. ITS ABOUT THE LAND.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by droberts1958 *YES IT IS ABOUT THE LAND.
*The Palestinian counter offer ...
*Arafat was not smart ...
*I presume you mean that the UN not the UK deeded the initial land to Israel.
*I see in your world of harsh reality the big dog decides everything ...
*In my pool of increasing terrorisms everyone drowns ...
*At the very end of it all you are a coward.
*... it was about the land and the power that would go along with it. It still is. And the last shall be first.

1. It is not about the land. If it was, we would be in the process of negotiations, the bombings would stop, and the road to peace would be open. None of this is happening. Blame Arafat.

2. There is no Palestinian counter offer. Have you no access to the news, the web, or a TV? Go back and read the news reports from the Wye Accords. Arafat made no effort to open a dialog that would lead to peace. ARAFAT MADE NO COUNTER OFFER, HAD NO INTENTION OF NEGOTIATING, AND WOULD NOT MAKE A GOOD FAITH INVESTMENT IN THE PEACE PROCESS.

3. A smart man knows when to stop. "Arafat was not smart."

4. You presume incorrectly. The UK was the "owner" of the land at the time of the Partition Agreement. Have you no history book? Do you not know how to negotiate the www? The UN was a mediator invited to negotiate the establishment of the State of Israel. They did not own the land, they had no legal say over the land, and they could not dictate the actions of any party involved. Israel was deeded the land. They defended it and then went on to broaden their borders through defensive acquisition. As the "owners" of the land, unless they invite the UN to negotiate a settlement with Arafat and his Palestinian Terrorist Network, the UN needs to keep its nose out of Israeli Government and respect the Israeli national sovreignty.

5. The law of the big dog is not my idea of a perfect world. It is my observation of the reality of history for as long as we have been recording it. But, I forgot, you have no history book. :) In the real world, the little dog gets the left overs. Arafat isn't even the little dog on the block. He is a street mutt doomed to eat from trash cans and have people throw stuff at him. He is the kind of dog that finds a load of pork rind burning into his hide because he can't keep his nose out of other people's business.

6. In your pool of terrorism everyone drowns. Why? When someone is in trouble, the Palestinian lifeguard throws him a lead weight.

7. You call me a coward. On what basis?

8. Finally, a glimmer of truth. The land means power. Israel owns the land, they hold more land than people were willing to give in that they had the resolve to take it and hold it. They now have the power to say what will happen to it.

Saying it is about the land many times achieves nothing but guaranteeing a violent future for all sides of the argument. So stop saying it and start working for real peace. STOP TERRORISM!

[droberts1958]

Justpat,

Your notion that it all comes down to the biggest dog is simply a re-hash of Darwinism's survival of the fittest.

The fact is however that humans unlike other animals have the power to reason, to learn from history and from mistakes and to co-operate and make rules and have judges.

I am not sure that any other species or even human species at an earlier time than this century had the organisation and experience to come up with the a body with the job of resolving world disputes (or at least trying to).

If you had to rely on the UN to give you the land (as Israel does) then how can you say that it only matters who has the biggest dog.

You have a very convenient (and scary) view of how the world still works. What may have been accurate a hundred years ago no longer needs to be. Maybe your extensive studies of history have shown that yes people and history can change. It is unfortunate that we are not all becoming civilised at the same rate.

Yes you are still a coward.

Answer my question.

If you could guarantee full peace ad infinitum by going back to the pre 1967 boundaries would you ?

The only guarantee of perpetual conflict is the assumption that there will be perpetual conflict and accordingly you must "always always" protect yourselves with their land, (and maintain perpetual conflict).

[JustPat]

Originally posted by droberts1958
Your notion that it all comes down to the biggest dog is simply a re-hash of Darwinism's survival of the fittest. OK, if that's what you want to believe. As I stated earlier, I am not stating anything but an observation of the facts. Unlike Darwin, I have ready, first-hand evidence and need no theory to prove my point.


Originally posted by droberts1958 I am not sure that any other species or even human species at an earlier time than this century had the organisation and experience to come up with the a body with the job of resolving world disputes (or at least trying to). SO? The whole concept of global politics is relatively new. I don't think that any other period in history has had the level of global interaction we do.


Originally posted by droberts1958 If you had to rely on the UN to give you the land (as Israel does) then how can you say that it only matters who has the biggest dog. Where do you get this? Israel is not dependant on the UN, or anyone else, for the land they currently possess.


Originally posted by droberts1958 You have a very convenient (and scary) view of how the world still works. But, you see, it is how the world still works, like it or not. Having ideals is wonderful, but you have to live in reality and adjust yourself accordingly. Believe me, this is not my idea of an ideal world.


Originally posted by droberts1958 What may have been accurate a hundred years ago no longer needs to be. Maybe your extensive studies of history have shown that yes people and history can change. It is unfortunate that we are not all becoming civilised at the same rate. How true. But what can you expect when you have a culture that is bent on staying in the Middle Ages? I think you are arguing with the wrong group. It is the Arab community that has attempted to freeze itself in time. Go convince them to join the parade.


Originally posted by droberts1958 Yes you are still a coward. Answer my question. If you could guarantee full peace ad infinitum by going back to the pre 1967 boundaries would you ?Boy are you thick! Let me say this one more time, s-l-o-w-l-y, and see if you get it. YOUR QUESTION IS BASED ON A PREMISE THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH THE CURRENT CONDITIONS => IT IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY. It may always be an impossibility. The current Palestinian leadership is not going to negotiate. Give me a working premise and we will continue the discussion.


Originally posted by droberts1958 The only guarantee of perpetual conflict is the assumption that there will be perpetual conflict and accordingly you must "always always" protect yourselves with their land, (and maintain perpetual conflict). Have you got any idea what you just said?

[Mediocrates]

If you had to rely on the UN to give you the land (as Israel does) then how can you say that it only matters who has the biggest dog.


What exactly does that mean? Can you refine or explain that?

Who had relied on whom for what and when did it occur? And who, regionally speaking, has a big dog and who, whether driven by pan arab nationalism or not, dragged who into what war and why and who exactly lied to their own people about what was happening where? during the 132 hours of the 67 war? And which international organization was warned in advance to evacutate their peacekeeping posts in the Sinai in advance of which arab army? And which other arab armies to the east of said non arab country actually fired the first shots in the east while said non arab country was actively involved in another front to the west?

And which arab countries and terrorist organizations have history of such disasterously poor leadership that they were kicked out at gunpoint of which other arab nations, repeatedly?

[droberts1958]

Justpat,

The whole notion of biggest dog wins is that there are no rules other than force. The idea of an adjudicator such as the UN is that force should be the last way to resolve a dispute. You seem comfortable with barbarian ways and total lawlessness except when it is applied against you. You can't stomach suicide bombers which are a direct symtom of your barbarian lawless world.

Reality is what you make it. You don't understand my last comments and you accuse me of being thick. You are clearly yourself no mental giant. Let me say it real s-l-o-w-l-y.

The only guarantee of perpetual conflict is the assumption that there will be perpetual conflict and accordingly you must "always always" protect yourselves with their land, (and maintain perpetual conflict).

If Israel and its extremist supporters like yourself believe that peace with Palestinians and other Arabs can never be possible then you will always believe you must maintain their land as a security buffer. The problem is that by maintaining your posession of their land as a buffer you are maintaining a hatred for Israel, by the Palestinians which will make your assumption of perpetual hatred of Israel and conflict come true. The very truth of the matter is that you don't want peace because it might remove the very reason for maintaining the theft of the Palestinians land. Some novel thoughts for you. People can change. History does not need to repeat itself. People can learn from their mistakes.

Yes you are more that just a coward. My question at the end is based a premise that peace is possible. Your refusal to answer it means that clearly it is even more difficult when bitter small minded people prefer massive loss of life on both sides to peace (and the loss of an excuse for occupation)

Try to open your mind to the thought that maybe peace eventually does stand a chance and answer the question put to you. I suspect the truth is that you prefer the notion of a greater Israel even if it means the constant and perpetual killing of many innocent Israelis and Palestinians. I guess to you this is a small price for some other people to have to pay.

[Mediocrates]

It's not about occupation because there are no occupied territoritories. They are disputed.

Palistanians will always live in the dust and squalor as long as their dictators tell them that it's merely the fault of the Jews that they do and all they need do kill civilians. Their lot in life will improve ONLY when and if they ultimately see their problems as solvable. If they see their lot in life as permanently different then all the European wannabes in the world can't help them.

A real coward is someone who wants all of the authority and none of the responsibility.

[rhodescholar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by droberts1958
[B]Justpat / ibrodsky

"The start of the 1967 War. I am prepared to concede quite readily that Israel has a technical argument that it did not start the war. Frankly I would agree that Israel probably would have been attacked if it did not act first."

Wrong, friend. #1 - Egypt had called off the first scheduled full-scale attack on june 1st as word gout out that the US had discovered the time of their attack and had warned israel. #2 - Syria and Egypt were already maunching artillery and mortar attacks into israeli cities and airports when israel attacked on June 6th. # 3- Read Nasser and other arab leaders' comments at the time about what they planned to do to the Jews.

What ppl like yourself never seem to grasp is that if israel lost a war, the jews would all be slaughtered, while israel kept winning these wars, and never slaughtered or expelled the arabs from the WB/Gaza. Quite a difference, wouldnt u say?

"Pre-emptive attacks are very dangerous however because they remove the opportunity for last minute negotiating which can avoid war. On Israel's argument WW3 would have started if Russia had bombed the US when the US blockaded Cuba."

Actaully WW3 nearly started b/c the soviets were about to send in subs and troops with SOVIET soldiers to attack israel. The US warned them that if they did the US would launch an all out attack on the arabs, and sink any subs they found. BTW, there were large numbers of israeli soldiers captured by the arabs turned over to the russians for interrogation, never to be heard from again. Juxtapose that with the good treatment received by the arab casualties who were released at the war's end. Starting to see a pattern here?

"The Israeli argument that it has some title to the land because of unbroken habitation or continuous connection with the land is the most pathetic of arguments that can be put together. For almost two thousand years right up until the 1900s present Israel had a tiny Jewish minority. If the only relationship with the land is a tiny minority then it is not close to enough any claim to the land. For thousands of years the people who lived there were Arabs a small fraction of whom believed in Judaism."

Patently false. Please research before opening your mouth here and exposing your outright ignorance. #1 - visit the British archives (as i have done) for the census' taken by them in the 1840s thru the 1890s. You will find only nomadic arab tribes moving thru a virtual desert, primarily dotted by jewish settlements. Facts are key to making arguments, and without facts nor history, you cant make any.

"Yes I concede that Israel has never openly and directly threatened anyone with nuclear weapons."

The former president of iran said in april that iran, once it has acquired nuclear technology from russia, should use them on israel, even if the return fire costs 10% of the arab world. He said this w/b a fair and acceptable loss if the destruction of israel was accomplished. These are human beings to negotiate with?

"I also strongly oppose the Syrian occupation of Lebanon."

So how incredible is that that the s--thole of a nation sits at the presidency of the UN Security Council? Ask my favorite federal agency, the US State dept.

"Israelis are always quick to quote all the innocent Jewish lives which have been lost in the lastest conflict but always slow to quote the fact that twice as many Palestinian lives have been lost."

Now u r beginning to sound like jim zogby or hussein ibbish. For the thousandth time, the jews killed in places like ma'alot, netanya, etc were NON-COMBATANTS. Counting and comparing the numbers of those killed versus suicide bobmers and direct comabatants killed sounds rather moronic, doesnt it?

"Suicide bombings are the only means to bring real pressure for a resolution"

Total ****. There are many oppressed ppl around the world - shoot, there have been 2 MILLION sudanese christians massacred - and i dont see any of them suicide bombing women and babies. Must be a sickness in the religion, yes?

"and they don't have tanks or planes to do their killing for them."

No, just 10,000 katyusha rockets on the lebanese border plus enough explosives to blow up buses, merkava tanks and a lot of restaurants. At least u had the sense not to say "children throwing rocks," cuz that w/have ended my responses to u - period.

"The reason why land for peace makes so much sense is a simple mathamatical equation which most Jewish people are too emotionally involved to see."

Another patent lie. They traded land for peace with egypt, after spending 8 BILLION dollars to turn the sinai desert into farmland, but received ZERO compensation from the ntion which attacked, and lost, that same land.

"Israel can never stop suicide bombings"

They can, if they took the necessary steps to do so. It would mean turning their backs to the hypocritical leftwing "leadership" of europe and bringing back the survival instincts and strength of conviction they had before the lebanese war affected their psyche.

"There is only one answer proper respectful peace. Not the 97% peace and leaving some settlements and external boundaries patrolled by Israel and an inability to arm itself. Of course Arafat rejected that not because he didn't want peace but because the peace being offered was not enough."

If you are against the syrian occupation of lebanon, do u know the histroy of how that started? Seems u are a bit light there, so i will help. In the 1970s a terrorist group called the PLO, after being expelled by their host nation (jordan), who i should add offered to share leadership with them and they refused (sound familiar?) fled to lebanon. They then fomented a civil war in a nation that had kept a fair peace between arabs and christians for decades. The PLO animals then starting murdering citizens in broad daylight, demanding money at checkpoints to pass thru (hmmmm, that sounds familiar too) and launching attacks into israel once the lebanese govt ad totally collapsed. Arafat is reposnible - personally - for the deaths of TENS OF THOUSANDS of lebanese maronite christians.

Next time, please read up on the facts and history of the middle east so u sound a bit less foolish and ignorant.

[rhodescholar]

Either u r brainswashed, or completely devoid of facts. Which is it?

1) Before 1967, THERE WERE NO DISPUTED TERRITORIES. Yet israel faced massive terrorism EVERY YEAR since 1949. If you dont believe me, go check the NY Times microfiche at your local library. I have, and there were THOUSANDS of terriorist strikes into israel by neighboring arab nations from 1949 forward. THOUSANDS.

2) The suicide bombings ar not a new strategy; they are merely a new tactic in a 54 -year long war. Please read a history book of the comments by arab leaders that almost daily threatened israle with total destruction, and the "expulsion of all the jews into the sea". That phrase was made YEARS BEFORE 1967.

3) Jordan and Egypt had control of the WB and Gaza from 1948 thru 1967. Were u protesting THEN against those 2 nations to force them to provide a palestinian state? I'd bet u werent, becuase not only was noone else, but THE TERM PALESTINIAN DID NOT EVEN EXIST BEFORE THE 1960S.

4) Arafat and the PLO were expelled from Jordan in 1970, Syria in 1982, for trying to overthrow the govt. Kuwait and Yemen expelled 300,000 palestinians EACH in 1991 for supporting saddam. Do you see a pattern here?

[MGB8]

Originally posted by droberts1958
Justpat,


Answer my question.

If you could guarantee full peace ad infinitum by going back to the pre 1967 boundaries would you ?

The only guarantee of perpetual conflict is the assumption that there will be perpetual conflict and accordingly you must "always always" protect yourselves with their land, (and maintain perpetual conflict).



In a second I would, as would almost every Israeli. But THAT is fantasy.

You see, nothing can be guaranteed. Peace is only an agreement on paper, subject to change at whim. The only thing that guarantees survival is the efforts of the individual, in this case, Israel.

A revolt in Egypt or Jordan - no more peace. A change of mind 10 years down the road. No more peace.

Peace comes from STRENGTH. It comes from the fact that your potential enemies know that they will likely not get anything from resorting to violence.

That is what you don't understand. This isn't a fantasy world - you have to be prepared for close to worst-case scenario's.

Its the same thing with WW1 and WW2. After WWI, the Germans were not convinced that they couldn't gain all they want through military conquest, so they tried it again. The 2nd time around, it became clear that the powers of the US and Russia were much too strong for Germany to overcome, even if it could trounce all mainland Europe and England.

Ditto for Japan visa vi China and the Pacific.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by droberts1958 If Israel and its extremist supporters like yourself believe that peace with Palestinians and other Arabs can never be possible then you will always believe you must maintain their land as a security buffer. The problem is that by maintaining your posession of their land as a buffer you are maintaining a hatred for Israel, by the Palestinians which will make your assumption of perpetual hatred of Israel and conflict come true. At what point did it get to be "their land"? Prior to the various wars that have been rained on Israel, it was land that belonged in the stewardship of Jordan and Egypt. Go study history and them come back and discuss the matter.


Originally posted by droberts1958 The very truth of the matter is that you don't want peace because it might remove the very reason for maintaining the theft of the Palestinians land. Some novel thoughts for you. People can change. History does not need to repeat itself. People can learn from their mistakes. Theft? How can you call it theft when Israel gained possession of it through a defensive war? They were not the aggressor. A shame you cannot read.


Originally posted by droberts1958 Yes you are more that just a coward. My question at the end is based a premise that peace is possible. Your refusal to answer it means that clearly it is even more difficult when bitter small minded people prefer massive loss of life on both sides to peace (and the loss of an excuse for occupation) Ah ... You should be addressing this to Arafat, not me. It is Arafat who keeps this conflagration in progress. It is Arafat who is cowardly hiding behind civilians and innocents. It is Arafat who refuses to negotiate.


Originally posted by droberts1958 Try to open your mind to the thought that maybe peace eventually does stand a chance and answer the question put to you. I suspect the truth is that you prefer the notion of a greater Israel even if it means the constant and perpetual killing of many innocent Israelis and Palestinians. I guess to you this is a small price for some other people to have to pay. I venture that the threat of a truly open mind would shatter your world.

[Mediocrates]

Re: "It's about land"


Perhaps it's a small point but to the settlers it's not. And the point is this. If you have ever been to Judea and Samaria you would be shocked at the endless expanses of nothing in every direction. You could build 50 cites the size of Ramallah and still have room to surround each one with industrial farms and soccer fields.

Foreigners have the impression that Judea and Samaria are nothing but endless rabbit warrens of shanties piled on top of one another. This is simply not the case most of the territories are blank expanses of dirt and rolling hills. As a comparison, the 4 counties that make up Long Island, New York are home to ~7.5 million people. Long Island is ~120 miles long and 12 miles wide or about 1500 sq miles. For most of Long Island the land is huge expanses of grassland, brush, pine scrub and sand. Particularly at the east end. If someone said there is not enough land on Long Island to support 7.5 million people they would be crazy.

Point is there is several times more than enough land for everyone. On edit: the West Bank is ~2110 sq. miles and home to 1.8 million people these are UN numbers so we assume that they don't count the settlers. Round out to 2 million souls. This yields ~947 people/sq mi or 307 people/sq km. Compare that to this chart (# = people/sq/km)

1 Macau 20,824.38
2 Monaco 16,486.67
3 Hong Kong 6,571.14
4 Singapore 5,539.77
5 Gibraltar 4,486.92
6 Gaza Strip 3,090.71
7 Holy See 1,977.27
8 Bermuda 1,249.44
9 Malta 1,192.51
10 Bahrain 1,014.66
11 Maldives 1,000.73
12 Bangladesh 949.28
13 Jersey 773.46
14 Taiwan 685.47
15 Mauritius 639.03
16 Barbados 602.77
17 Nauru 505.00
18 Korea, South 477.49
19 Netherlands 466.45
20 Puerto Rico 433.94
21 San Marino 417.68
22 Tuvalu 407.23
23 Mayotte 398.23
24 Martinique 388.24
25 Marshall Islands 361.32
26 Aruba 355.83
27 Saint Vincent and
the Grenadines 354.47
28 Lebanon 348.26
29 Virgin Islands 343.34
30 Guernsey 337.04
31 Belgium 336.82
32 Japan 336.72
33 India 336.62
34 Rwanda 326.85
35 American Samoa 320.53
36 Sri Lanka 295.72

Which would put Judea and Samaria at 36th on the list. In how many of these countries is land actually an issue for development? Though one could make a case for the problems associated with Gaza, being 6th on the list.

on edit: this same list currently ranks WB at 38:

38 West Bank 285.66

Source: http://www.photius.com/wfb1999/rankings/population_density_0.html

[redcake]

Originally posted by michael


I'm no expert but this is the opinion of Israel Shahak, former Chairman of the Israeli League for Human Civil Rights;
want to apply against the Jews"

Just so you know...Israel Shahak was no expert either. He might not be able to differentiate between Talmudic law and Israel's state laws, but that's no shock when one takes into account he's a self proclaimed prophet who claims Jews pray to satan daily. He was debunked as far back as 1966 when he admitted to making fraudelent claims regarding Talmudic law (the case was over a fictitious account of an Orthodox Jew refusng to call an ambulence and "violate" Sabbath. Shahak was wrong, as Jews are required to break Sabbath in this case)

You'll also be happy to know that the french edition Shahak's last book was published by a neo-Nazi press. So be careful who you quote as an "expert".

[cerulean]

http://www.jpost.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/Full&cid=1023716463830

This editorial argues:

Israel had an obligation to administer the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), since it belonged to no other country.

Israeli control of the WB has not been an obstacle to peace negotiations but an impetus.

From what I understand, the article suggests that if Jews in the WB are to be transferred out, this should be done in response to transferring out the Arabs out of Israel.

[droberts1958]

Some responses

cerulean I read your link. It is pure Jewish propaganda from a Jewish extremist who has not an ounce of fairness to his name.

Mediocrates

Your point : Point is there is several times more than enough land for everyone Wrong. The original inhabitants who had been living there for thousands of years do not want the intruders to live there. This is the right of every nation in the world. That is to decide who is entitled to immigrate. Whether there happens to be some vacant land that intruders can live on is totally irrelevant.

Justpat.

Your sense of totally irrelevance continues to stagger me. You ask me to read. I suggest you try and try and scrape together half a brain and then try dealing with the issues.

It got to be their land because they have always lived there. Get this through your thick skull. Sure you can go back 2,000 years till the Jews lived there in some numbers but that is irrelevant. Whether it was most recently in the custodianship of Jordan or Egypt or England is all irrelvant. I suppose living there for a couple of thousand years counts for nothing. If someone else had been living there and they came in with a bigger army and scared them all away then they could legitamately say that it is theirs. Very sound argument. Well done.

Defensive war. Then why is it still being occupied. It is now the cause of the hostilities. Why all the Jewish settlements. No I don't buy that one. It may have started out as a defensive war but now the Zionists want a bigger backyard.

Justpat you are still a coward. Actually you are worse. You are a hyprcritical coward. Who else would have the cheek to attack me for not having an open mind when you refuse to deal with the issue.

If you could guarantee full peace ad infinitum by going back to the pre 1967 boundaries would you ?

MGB8 delt with it in a second. He called it a fantasy which I don't agree with but he answered the question honestly. "In a second I would, as would almost every Israeli"

I would be happy to deal in a separate thread with why I believe it is not a fantasy and why it should be pursed over time but so far you will not even answer the question.

If you have a truly open mind not capable of shattering, answer the question. Either this or you are gutless and stupid.

rhodescholar

Yes the Arabs tried to wipe Israel off the face of the earth before 1967. If the positions had been reversed the Jews would have tried to do exactly the same. No question.

Fact is that the Arabs (or at least a majority) now accept Israel and the Saudi plan proposes full rights and peace in return for land.

As I have said before. People can change.

You can say that because Egypt and Jordan had control over the WB and G before 1967 but what does this prove. Nothing. The fact remains which you seem unable to understand that people regardless of who has control for interim times have the right to their own self-determination. They would like to be free now and get on with their lives. The very vast majority would accept Israel's right to exist as a soverign state if Israel accepted their right to exist as a soverign state. The violent minority would be marginalised if peace was made. Their ability to find would be suicide bomers would dissappear if peace was made.

quote : "You will find only nomadic arab tribes moving thru a virtual desert, primarily dotted by jewish settlements. Facts are key to making arguments, and without facts nor history, you cant make any". un quote.

Of course it is easy to make an argument with your facts as you create them out of thin air or at best patently false Israeli propaganda. The WB and G was not nomadic arab tribes with Jewish settlements. Everyone except you seems to know that the WB and G has been almost fully Arab for thousands of years.

You seem to think that all the Israeli deaths were innocent civilians whilst all the Arabs were suicide bombers and direct combatants. Surely all the settlers are direct combatants. They are out there trying to colonize some one else's land. Don't try and tell me any of them are by your standards innocent civilians.

Can I suggest that next time you try and understand that people can change, that peace does have a chance, that your extremist views are not the only way to look at this dispute, that way you sound a bit less racist and paranoid.

[Mediocrates]

Your point : Point is there is several times more than enough land for everyone Wrong. The original inhabitants who had been living there for thousands of years do not want the intruders to live there. This is the right of every nation in the world. That is to decide who is entitled to immigrate. Whether there happens to be some vacant land that intruders can live on is totally irrelevant.

So tell me Nimnertz why the Palestinians can never accept even the possibility that the settlers live in Palestine as Palestinian citizens, part of a Jewish minority? What? What? Yeah, I didn't think so!!

It's not about land, it's about racism. So go back to your little hovel think pure thoughts about Jihad.

[ibrodsky]

droberts1958

Perhaps if your arguments were based on facts and reason you would not need to indulge in personal attacks...



Originally posted by droberts1958
cerulean I read your link. It is pure Jewish propaganda from a Jewish extremist who has not an ounce of fairness to his name.

The article raises a number of legitimate issues. It was published in a respected journal, Commentary. Your comments provide the lack of fairness: you have not offered one ounce of evidence that the author is wrong.



Mediocrates

Your point : Point is there is several times more than enough land for everyone Wrong. The original inhabitants who had been living there for thousands of years do not want the intruders to live there. This is the right of every nation in the world. That is to decide who is entitled to immigrate. Whether there happens to be some vacant land that intruders can live on is totally irrelevant.

Determining who are the "intruders" is the whole point. Jews, not Arabs, have lived there for "thousands of years." Read Joan Peters' book, From Time Immemorial and you will see vast documented evidence that most of the Arabs living in "Palestine" came after the rise of Zionism. In fact, she shows that many of the people counted among the original Arab refugees were people who had only been living in Palestine for less than 2 years.


Justpat.

Your sense of totally irrelevance continues to stagger me. You ask me to read. I suggest you try and try and scrape together half a brain and then try dealing with the issues.

It got to be their land because they have always lived there. Get this through your thick skull. Sure you can go back 2,000 years till the Jews lived there in some numbers but that is irrelevant. Whether it was most recently in the custodianship of Jordan or Egypt or England is all irrelvant. I suppose living there for a couple of thousand years counts for nothing. If someone else had been living there and they came in with a bigger army and scared them all away then they could legitamately say that it is theirs. Very sound argument. Well done.

Defensive war. Then why is it still being occupied. It is now the cause of the hostilities. Why all the Jewish settlements. No I don't buy that one. It may have started out as a defensive war but now the Zionists want a bigger backyard.

Justpat you are still a coward. Actually you are worse. You are a hyprcritical coward. Who else would have the cheek to attack me for not having an open mind when you refuse to deal with the issue.

If you could guarantee full peace ad infinitum by going back to the pre 1967 boundaries would you ?

Why all the Arab settlements and "refugee camps"? Why did they need to settle in Palestine in anticipation of the Brits leaving? You argue that Arabs lived there for "thousands of years" and that maters; then you argue that Jews lived there thousands of years ago and that doesn't matter -- but you ignore the fact that Jews have lived there continuously.


MGB8 delt with it in a second. He called it a fantasy which I don't agree with but he answered the question honestly. "In a second I would, as would almost every Israeli"

I would be happy to deal in a separate thread with why I believe it is not a fantasy and why it should be pursed over time but so far you will not even answer the question.

If you have a truly open mind not capable of shattering, answer the question. Either this or you are gutless and stupid..

We have already dealt with your demands that everyone discuss the issue per your dictatorial whims...


rhodescholar

Yes the Arabs tried to wipe Israel off the face of the earth before 1967. If the positions had been reversed the Jews would have tried to do exactly the same. No question.

Fact is that the Arabs (or at least a majority) now accept Israel and the Saudi plan proposes full rights and peace in return for land.

As I have said before. People can change.

You can say that because Egypt and Jordan had control over the WB and G before 1967 but what does this prove. Nothing. The fact remains which you seem unable to understand that people regardless of who has control for interim times have the right to their own self-determination. They would like to be free now and get on with their lives. The very vast majority would accept Israel's right to exist as a soverign state if Israel accepted their right to exist as a soverign state. The violent minority would be marginalised if peace was made. Their ability to find would be suicide bomers would dissappear if peace was made.

quote : "You will find only nomadic arab tribes moving thru a virtual desert, primarily dotted by jewish settlements. Facts are key to making arguments, and without facts nor history, you cant make any". un quote.

Of course it is easy to make an argument with your facts as you create them out of thin air or at best patently false Israeli propaganda. The WB and G was not nomadic arab tribes with Jewish settlements. Everyone except you seems to know that the WB and G has been almost fully Arab for thousands of years.

You seem to think that all the Israeli deaths were innocent civilians whilst all the Arabs were suicide bombers and direct combatants. Surely all the settlers are direct combatants. They are out there trying to colonize some one else's land. Don't try and tell me any of them are by your standards innocent civilians.

Can I suggest that next time you try and understand that people can change, that peace does have a chance, that your extremist views are not the only way to look at this dispute, that way you sound a bit less racist and paranoid.

Nonsense. Your claim, for example, that all settlers are "combatants" is total garbage. What, the five year old girl who was shot to death at point blank range in her bedroom was a "combatant"? Most settlers, I suspect, are unarmed.

[Mediocrates]

The UN is not asking the Jews to leave WB and Gaza but merely asking the Israelis to back to the pre 1967 borders.


The Palestinians themselves are and have and will continue to demand that in keeping with their racist reactionary 8th Century view of the world.

[JustPat]

Let me respond to your rantings in three parts:
Part One

Originally posted by droberts1958 Point is there is several times more than enough land for everyone Wrong. The original inhabitants who had been living there for thousands of years do not want the intruders to live there. This is the right of every nation in the world. That is to decide who is entitled to immigrate. Whether there happens to be some vacant land that intruders can live on is totally irrelevant. Obviously you prefer propaganda to research. Tell me, since you seem to have all the answers, how many settlements were built on land being utilized by Palestinians for farming or housing?
1. None of the current parties are thousands of years old and thus none can claim tenancy as title.
2. The UK in agreement with the UN gave Israel title to their original holdings on the land.
3. The numerous wars brought to the land by Arabs bent on erasing the Jews from the picture have put them in the position of being the current stewards of the land.
4. The Palestinians are not a state, have no land, and don't seem to possess the mentality govern themselves with integrity or dignity.
Bearing all this in mind, whyis it only the land "occupied" by Israel that the Palestinians want? (Including all the land granted by the UK in 1948.)

Part Two

Originally posted by droberts1958 Justpat, your sense of totally irrelevance continues to stagger me. You ask me to read. I suggest you try and try and scrape together half a brain and then try dealing with the issues.
- It got to be their land because they have always lived there. Get this through your thick skull. Sure you can go back 2,000 years till the Jews lived there in some numbers but that is irrelevant. Whether it was most recently in the custodianship of Jordan or Egypt or England is all irrelvant. I suppose living there for a couple of thousand years counts for nothing. If someone else had been living there and they came in with a bigger army and scared them all away then they could legitamately say that it is theirs. Very sound argument. Well done.
- Defensive war. Then why is it still being occupied. It is now the cause of the hostilities. Why all the Jewish settlements. No I don't buy that one. It may have started out as a defensive war but now the Zionists want a bigger backyard. I take it that you do not intend to research or read?


Originally posted by droberts1958 Who else would have the cheek to attack me for not having an open mind. Anyone who reads your posts ... duh.


Originally posted by droberts1958 You seem to think that all the Israeli deaths were innocent civilians whilst all the Arabs were suicide bombers and direct combatants. Surely all the settlers are direct combatants. They are out there trying to colonize some one else's land. Don't try and tell me any of them are by your standards innocent civilians.

Can I suggest that next time you try and understand that people can change, that peace does have a chance, that your extremist views are not the only way to look at this dispute, that way you sound a bit less racist and paranoid. [/B] So why are the bombers targeting Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and such? It must be those mass jitnies to market that the settlers take. :rolleyes:

Part Three

Originally posted by droberts1958 If you could guarantee full peace ad infinitum by going back to the pre 1967 boundaries would you ?
- MGB8 delt with it in a second. He called it a fantasy which I don't agree with but he answered the question honestly. "In a second I would, as would almost every Israeli" Ah, but you see, here is the rub. Now you believe that MGB8 is in agreement with you because he gave you the answer you want. I give you a different answer and you revert to calling childish names. If you do not like my answer, don't keep repeating the question. "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

In closing, for some reason what I have to say pushes your buttons. Perhaps because you are not secure in your argument. After all, it is very difficult to justify the actions of terrorism against innocent civilians. When you are done with the name calling and can hold an adult conversation, please feel free to contact me. In the meantime, by choice, I will simply ignore you. :) Bye!

[rhodescholar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by droberts1958

"Defensive war. Then why is it still being occupied."

Because the israelis are decent (i would say foolish) and did not fo what the arabs would have done, expelled and/or slaughtered them.

"It is now the cause of the hostilities. Why all the Jewish settlements. No I don't buy that one. It may have started out as a defensive war but now the Zionists want a bigger backyard."

Now the true colors are starting to appear, the real hatred of jews is finally coming out into the open.

"Justpat you are still a coward. Actually you are worse. You are a hyprcritical coward."

Didnt u condemn personal attacks early in this thread LOL? O no, another whoopsie.

"Yes the Arabs tried to wipe Israel off the face of the earth before 1967. If the positions had been reversed the Jews would have tried to do exactly the same. No question."

U r now lying to the point where u are drowning yourself in the s--t. The positions WERE reversed, mr historian LOL. The IDF won EVERY WAR, so show me ONE IOTA OF PROOF where they have slaughtered large numbers of arabs as a policy?


"Fact is that the Arabs (or at least a majority) now accept Israel"

Endless lies. EVERY POLL, including those by arabs in the mideast and the disputed terrotories shows overwhelming support for the destruction of israel.

"and the Saudi plan proposes full rights and peace in return for land."

No it doesnt. It provides "normal relations", meaning they will cease frontal assaults, but continue the terrorism, just like they did after 1973. I have yet to see ONE, JUST ONE, proposal from the arabs that addresses how they will deal with Hamas, Hezbollah, etc after a peace treaty is signed. The last time (in 1993) Hamas launched their first suicide bomber 3 MONTHS after the Declaration of Principles.

And genius, guess who pays Hamas' bills? Irony of ironies, our dear friends the SAUDIS.

"You can say that because Egypt and Jordan had control over the WB and G before 1967 but what does this prove. Nothing"

It proves EVERYTHING genius, since if it was so important to the pals, and the arabs TRULY loved their "arab brothers' as they claim to, they would have created a pal state THE DAY AFTER THEY TOOK THE LAND. BUT THEY DIDNT. Thats why the whole pal nationalistic movement is one of THE GREATEST FRAUDS ever perpetuated on the world, and the european fools and World Media are to blame.

"The fact remains which you seem unable to understand that people regardless of who has control for interim times have the right to their own self-determination."

Wha? Egypt and Jordan lost the lands b/c of an aggressive war, not b/c it magically fell into israel's hands. Try sticking to the facts for a change, it might help your credibility.

"The violent minority would be marginalised if peace was made."

LOL. How, and by whom? The Saudis, Syrians and Iranians who now have fulfilled their dream of being abel to attack israel from up close? Are you so mentally bankrupt that you dont see the arabs' true plans? Or are u just an arab infiltrator (likely) into these boards here to waste our time?

"quote : "You will find only nomadic arab tribes moving thru a virtual desert, primarily dotted by jewish settlements. Facts are key to making arguments, and without facts nor history, you cant make any". un quote. Of course it is easy to make an argument with your facts as you create them out of thin air or at best patently false Israeli propaganda. The WB and G was not nomadic arab tribes with Jewish settlements. Everyone except you seems to know that the WB and G has been almost fully Arab for thousands of years.

LOL. Unlike you, who has no facts WHATSOEVER at your disposal, i have spent over 30 years studying the mideast. Just b/c u YOU DONT LIKE something because it undermines your lies, doesnt make it any less of a fact. Since u dont believe me, YOU GO TO THE National Archives in London for the facts yourself. You are so transparent its funny - israeli propaganda, i love it.

"Surely all the settlers are direct combatants. They are out there trying to colonize some one else's land. Don't try and tell me any of them are by your standards innocent civilians."

I will soon be reaching for the ignore button. First you claim to be absolutely committed to non-violence, then u advocate the murder of civilians, including children, simply for choosing where they live. Your credibility is in a state of freefall. And if the land isnt israel's, then whose is it?

"Can I suggest that next time you try and understand that people can change, that peace does have a chance, that your extremist views are not the only way to look at this dispute, that way you sound a bit less racist and paranoid."

LOL. The old and final refuge of the idealogically and morally bankrupt - "you are racist."

[droberts1958]

Justpat.

I have no idea whether or not I like your answers, simply because inspite of the repeated questioning you never gave one. When asked a difficult question the fact remains you were not up the task. You avoided it without shame.

ibrodsky

I read a bit more about your book "From Time Immemorial" It seems it has been very completly discredited.

The link at

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2002/april/pb_6rest_of_book.htm

begins its final conclusions on the book in the terms "From Time Immemorial is work of propaganda, with all the bad connotations that term carries" It gets worse for you as you read this very detailed critique.

You say "We have already dealt with your demands that everyone discuss the issue per your dictatorial whims... " Clearly you don't understand what dictatorial means. How does some one dictate over the internet. Pressure yes I agree but even this was not enough to get an honest answer of a very relevant question. Justpat ignored it as do you.

Would you go back to the 1967 borders if you could be guaranteed peace. It seems to me that those avoiding this easy to answer question are not prepared to reveal that the truth is that they would rather have the land along with all the killing rather than the peace. SAD.

Rhodescholar

Don't let me stop you using the ignore button.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by droberts1958
[B]

Would you go back to the 1967 borders if you could be guaranteed peace.

I can be bossy also.

Define "guarantee" in this context. No obfuscations.

Name any instance in history where any country has gotten a "guarantee" of peace and the circumstances thereof.

[droberts1958]

By guarantee I mean literally by some "magic" it was possible to know that peace would be made for ever.

Really the question is a hypothetical. Some may call it a fantasy and in the current climate I certainly do not dispute this.

Really in any times the question is fantasy in regard to the Middle East or any country.

I can name no times when countries have been guaranteed security peace or anything like this.

This does not mean it is not relevant however. It represents a goal which it is worth identifying. It will distinquish those who believe that all of the WB and G truly belong to Israel and that peace should not be made by sacrificing land which is truly (in their mind) their own.

[Mediocrates]

Land for peace is merely fatigue by another name. It's an excuse the apolgists of murder use to feel comfortable with their own collaboration.

Think of a solution?

Nah - just give up a third of the country.

Worried about every city in your country being unprotected by your early warning perimeter in any direction at all times?

Nah - just give away a third of your country and complain to the UN if you get slaughtered.

Worried that this is no solution at all and murder will procede unchecked regardless - at the rate of 30 people per week (which BTW is approx the same murder rate proportionally at the worst times of the worst American cities in the last 25 years. - - but please tell me more about the appropriate response is to do nothing)

Nah just surrender a third of your country to murderers.

Give in. Don't think. It probably will never happen near your house.

Frankly I'm shocked you're not out there protesting at your local American consulate to complain about the arrest of the FARC Columbian 'freedom fighter' in Suriname and who was brought to Washington yesterday. Aren't all struggles legitimate? Shouldn't we simply divide up every country according to whomever has the guns to make an impression in front of the UN?

[elke]

DRoberts, if there was a magic way to guarantee peace and justice for everyone, there would be no reason to have ANY country. Everyone could live where they want, and we could all save our hard-earned money currently spent on warfare,-and do something REALLY important with it: spend it on whatever it is we want to spend it on.

That's why your question doesn't really make sense.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by droberts1958

Would you go back to the 1967 borders if you could be guaranteed peace. It seems to me that those avoiding this easy to answer question are not prepared to reveal that the truth is that they would rather have the land along with all the killing rather than the peace. SAD.


Please tell me what the "1967 borders" are. What you call the "1967 borders" was nothing but a cease fire line. Israel's Arab enemies didn't accept those borders then, and they don't accept them now. The "1967 borders" to Iraq, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, etc. is an Islamic state encompassing the disputed territories and all of Israel.

You either don't get it, or you don't want to get it. When Israel's enemies talk about destroying Israel they are not just talking. The goal of terrorist attacks against Israelis is 1) to kill as many Jews as possible and 2) to demoralize Israel and (they hope) cause Jews to start heading for the exits.

What is sad is that you pretend to be for peace. If you were really for peace, you would recognize that people who intentionally blow up civilians going to work or eating in restaurants are the reason there is no peace -- not the IDF defending Israel. Israel offered the PA a state, and now that the IDF is reconquering the mass murderers' towns Arafat says he is ready to take the Barak/Clinton offer.

Gee, I thought it was a totally unacceptable offer. I guess he realizes that with his own state he could muster all of the Islamists' resources to prepare the final assault.

My answer to someone like you is that your arguments are totally irrelevant. Israel is fighting for survival against the most profound evil since Nazi Germany. (In fact, it is in a real sense the remnants of Nazi Germany.) Your "hypotheticals" may fool people who don't have anything at stake in the Arabs' dirty war against the Jewish people. But it doesn't fool me.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by droberts1958

ibrodsky

I read a bit more about your book "From Time Immemorial" It seems it has been very completly discredited.

The link at

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2002/april/pb_6rest_of_book.htm

begins its final conclusions on the book in the terms "From Time Immemorial is work of propaganda, with all the bad connotations that term carries" It gets worse for you as you read this very detailed critique.

I invite everyone to read this flimsy critique. The author thinks that if he just apologizes upfront for not presenting a very compelling case that we will take his word for it that he has one, though he couldn't be bothered to lay it out.

Actually, the critique does more to confirm Peters' findings than to discredit them. The reviewer agrees that Arabs immigrated to Palestine as a result of the rise of Zionism, and by implication that the Arab population in all of Palestine was greater only because while Arabs streamed in Jewish immigrants were being blocked.

But he ignores the main arguments in her book. One is that there never was a Golden Age during which Muslim society welcomed Jews as equals. Another is the Arabs' links to Nazi Germany.

The claim that Palestinians simply seek self-determination is exposed as a lie by their own recent history. They never demanded their own state prior to 1967. And as recently as this year a high ranking PA official stated publicly that their own state really isn't important -- the "right of return" to within Israel is.

The final paragraph of the critique reveals that rather than being an objective search for the truth, the critique is a politically-motivated project.

[Mediocrates]

I think its actually representative of its accuracy that so many rabidly pro Arab persons and groups have found the 'magic missing criticism' of that book. Do a quick google, you'll find oft quoted critique published by the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs which basically is the American arm of the Arab League. And you'll find some criticisms in "Capitalism" by Paul Blair who has a made a career out of defending his criticism of that book in places like The Rittenhouse Review. His defence of his criticism is almost as long as the criticism itself. At best the criticism is about her methods as an historian, not whether the basic facts are accurate or not.

Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.

But mostly it comes out of the garbled mess of neocon logical positivist Ayn Randian fascist groupthink that is the emblem of this group. As far as the middle east is concerned almost of all of them are self proclaimed 'Arabists' and offer nothing in the way of any insight into the Israeli perspective.

They profer to proffer their own abstract abstruse tortured logical analysis, impenetrable to all others and countenance no other beliefe, thought or language and at most only see the current situation in Israel through the filter of how it benefits the American 'War on Terrorism'.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Please tell me what the "1967 borders" are. What you call the "1967 borders" was nothing but a cease fire line. Israel's Arab enemies didn't accept those borders then, and they don't accept them now. The "1967 borders" to Iraq, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, etc. is an Islamic state encompassing the disputed territories and all of Israel.

This comment wasn't directed at me, but I think that it begs the question of those who advocate Israel being forced back into the 1967 state:

Since when did the Arabs and their supporters ever accept those borders? When were those borders made holy? And most importantly, we know that the Sinai was part of Israel in 1967. Should Egypt return the Sinai to Israel then?