PDA

View Full Version : Pullout protestors nuttier than ever



Womble
07-15-2005, 01:21 PM
Israel's roads hit by second oil 'attack' (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3113128,00.html)

Right-wing activists protesting the disengagement poured 36 liters of oil on road leading to jail Friday morning; incident is another in an increasingly long list of dangerous attempts to disrupt traffic
Eli Senior

RAMLA - Right-wing activists protesting the disengagement plan poured 36 liters of oil on Friday morning in the town of Ramla, near the Ma’asiyahu prison where anti-pullout road blockers were held recently.

The incident is another in an increasingly long list of dangerous attempts to disrupt traffic, say police. No injuries have been reported.

Police believe the oil spillage was carried out by anti-disengagement activists to protest the arrest of their friends who had blocked road in earlier demonstrations.

Large numbers of police arrived on the scene and found oil spilled all over the road, and two more oil containers to the side of the road.

Firefighters are working to clear the oil, and the road has been closed until further notice.

Police have launched a criminal investigation, and are trying to locate, among other evidence, fingerprints in the oil that were left on the scene.

The last incident involving oil spillage took place two weeks ago, after leaders of the right-wing “National Home” movement promised to block off Israel’s main arteries in the afternoon rush hour.

During that morning, oil was spilt and spikes were scattered on a number of roads causing serious traffic jams on Highway 1.

The tires of around 20 cars were punctured by the nails, and police had to call in roadside assistance staff in order to replace the tires. The road was closed for 2 hours, and police say that only a miracle prevented a major disaster, as the punctures occurred when the vehicles were traveling at high speed.

sharonbn
07-16-2005, 02:31 AM
This is no longer "peaceful protest". Spilling oil on roads can have grave consequences. I am sad to say I don't think they will stop at that. The nearer the withdrawal gets, the more violent these hoodlams will become. As long as they are backed up by prominent religious and political figures (like KM Arie Eldad, openly calling for "civil rebellion"), they will have no incentive to stop their actions.

KettleWhistle
07-16-2005, 09:48 AM
Pullout protestors nuttier than ever

Well, these people are being evicted from their homes by a bunch of government bureaucrats. Don't tell me that if someone told you that you are being evicted, you'd just say, "well, goodie" and happily move on.

FOGOMAINS
07-16-2005, 10:48 AM
Well, these people are being evicted from their homes by a bunch of government bureaucrats. Don't tell me that if someone told you that you are being evicted, you'd just say, "well, goodie" and happily move on.

Tried to understand the Gaza-withdrawal. It will not change the PA's support for terrorists. I can understand the anger and disappointment of the settlers.

redcake
07-17-2005, 03:41 AM
It's not like Gaza ever attracted a sane bunch to begin with. Even with the new developments it's still Gaza. Israel built on Gaza so they would never have to give it back, and the people who make aliyah purposely picked Gaza as their home while knowing this day might come. I don't support the principles behind their eviction, but some of these resistance groups are just off their rockers.

I attended (sort of accidently) the Jewish protest against Sharon's disengagement plan when he visited Baruch College in NY.... and it got very confrontational. There were teenagers wearing stars pinned to their clothes with the word "jude". There were kids waving flags that said mosiach on them. It was loud, and intense, and pretty sad that Sharon was probably under a great security risk due to other Jews. If this movement ever picks up steam, I hate to see what happens when they cross paths with a Pro-Palestine march. A part of me did really feel a sense of empowerment by what I watched.... but I sure had mixed feelings over it.

SteveK
07-17-2005, 05:14 AM
Not so long ago, I remember seeing pictures in The Jerusalem Post of huge,---gigantic,--- fresh vegetable salads that the Gaza residents had prepared for the soldiers and the public from their agricultural produce. At that time, they were pouring oil on this testimony to their achievement of creating an oasis there during the better part of their lives.

Israeli shoppers knew very well their fresh, and bug-free vegetables.

Earlier, they started to seek public attention for their fate of expulsion, from their homes and land, by promoting themselves as highly productive citizens of The State of Israel.

What spun them out of control?

Maybe this might provide a key ...



Online editions of The Jerusalem Post: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jpost/

Spinning against disengagement; [Daily Edition]
TALYA HALKIN. Jerusalem Post. Jerusalem: Feb 22, 2005. pg. 13

People: Porat, Yuval, Barnea, Ziv, Sharon, Ariel
Section: Features

Abstract (Document Summary)
Six months ago, [Yuval Porat] and Ziv Barnea - his partner in the Spin Media firm for strategic consulting - approached The Council of Jewish Settlements of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha) with an offer to revamp the council's campaign, and were hired to orchestrate its battle against disengagement.

"I don't see the disengagement as private Yesha business, and my goal is to reach a ...


At the start, these Jewish settlers were hardly engaged in battle. They were
doing their utmost to show their achievements over a better part of their lifetimes in truly making the desert bloom, and sanctifying our God given land.

From what I remember of the original article in reading the hard copy edition, I don't think that this strategic consultant thought that the settlers' plan for delivering cherry tomatoes door to door for public relations and goodwill was the right choice for his game of hardball.

sharonbn
07-17-2005, 07:56 AM
Tried to understand the Gaza-withdrawal. It will not change the PA's support for terrorists. I can understand the anger and disappointment of the settlers.
WRONG.
The disengagement already changed PA "support" for terrorist.

Abu Mazen is so comitted to the disengagement hat he gave explicit orders to his forces to stop Qassam firing at all costs. Indeed, PA forces tried to stop Qassam firing by force. The result was an all-out war between Hamas and PA with live fire exchange and wounded and dead people.

Five Palestinians wounded in firefight
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3112945,00.html
Palestinian security forces trying to stop Qassam rocket attacks get into gunfight with terrorists; four security personnel, one Hamas member wounded

War on Gaza’s streets
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3113145,00.html
At least 2 Palestinians killed, more than 15 hurt in clashes between Hamas, PA security forces

nuttie
07-17-2005, 08:14 AM
Sharonbn,

I object to them being called "nuttier".

I certainly have nothing to do with them.

Nuttie

Mira
07-17-2005, 09:58 AM
WRONG.
The disengagement already changed PA "support" for terrorist.

Abu Mazen is so comitted to the disengagement hat he gave explicit orders to his forces to stop Qassam firing at all costs. Indeed, PA forces tried to stop Qassam firing by force. The result was an all-out war between Hamas and PA with live fire exchange and wounded and dead people.

Five Palestinians wounded in firefight
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3112945,00.html
Palestinian security forces trying to stop Qassam rocket attacks get into gunfight with terrorists; four security personnel, one Hamas member wounded

War on Gaza’s streets
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3113145,00.html
At least 2 Palestinians killed, more than 15 hurt in clashes between Hamas, PA security forces


Those are very recent articles.

SteveK
07-17-2005, 10:03 AM
Originally Posted by FOGOMAINS

Tried to understand the Gaza-withdrawal. It will not change the PA's support for terrorists. I can understand the anger and disappointment of the settlers.


Originally Posted by sharonbn

WRONG.
The disengagement already changed PA "support" for terrorist.

Abu Mazen is so comitted to the disengagement hat he gave explicit orders to his forces to stop Qassam firing at all costs. Indeed, PA forces tried to stop Qassam firing by force. The result was an all-out war between Hamas and PA with live fire exchange and wounded and dead people.


FOGOMAINS:

RIGHT!!!!

Where do you think that every "PA" dictator gets his "forces"? From the cesspool of terrorists! Where do the Arab murderers, torturers, and international pirates go after being released from Israeli jails (under "confidence building measures")? They go to serve with honor in the "PA" "forces".

Israelis, and our Government leaders, are worse than the three bums walking down the rail road tracks,- until coming to a big mound of dog excrement. They stop and look at each other. One picks up a wad of the doodoo and rubs it on his fingers, and says: "It feels like s***.". The second bum takes a piece of the poop and shoves it into his nostrils, and says: "It smells like s***". And, the third bum licks up a mouthful of the feces, and says: "It tastes like s***". The three bums look at each other and conclude together: "Gee, it's a good thing we didn't step in it.".

We know all about these wild vicious Arab terrorist dogs of the "PA", and the smell, taste, and feel of their vile and deadly filth. Abu Mazen, the current "PA" dictator, was behind the 1974 PLO deadly attack on a school in Maalot. But, the Israeli nation, and under the leadership of the Government of The State of Israel, have been willingly and consistently stepping into it regardless as the pile grows higher and deeper.

Mira
07-17-2005, 10:07 AM
I never talked with the people living in Gaza, but I have talked to people living in the West Bank settlements. Uniformily, all said that they would leave, with heavy hearts but leave nonetheless, if they thought that doing so would truly improve Israel's security situation and bring safety to Jews. As they see it, the opposite is what the disengagement will bring at this stage in Israel's relations with the Palestinians. There is no answer at the moment that will give any guarantee of progress. Many secular Israelis believe that by unilaterally leaving Gaza and portions of the West Bank, that will put the onus on the Palestinians to prove that they are also sincere about peace. But why is it that every time we come close to making some progress, the Palestinian terrorist groups blow things up? This time, we came so close to the disengagement. If Abbas does not have the ability or will to destroy the terrorist groups, then no progress will be made. The rockets will end up reaching farther inside Israel.

FOGOMAINS
07-17-2005, 11:32 AM
..... If Abbas does not have the ability or will to destroy the terrorist groups, then no progress will be made. The rockets will end up reaching farther inside Israel.
I'm sure it will happen :( No Palestinian government will be able (or intends) to stop terrorism.
The EU should stop sending money till the PA had solved the problem with the Palestinian terrorist and proves to be reliable.

KettleWhistle
07-17-2005, 12:26 PM
It's not like Gaza ever attracted a sane bunch to begin with. Even with the new developments it's still Gaza. Israel built on Gaza so they would never have to give it back, and the people who make aliyah purposely picked Gaza as their home while knowing this day might come.

No, not at all. When I was in Gaza City in 1992, it was neither treated as a foreign territory nor was it dangerous. It was Israel, just like any other place in Israel. No different from Ashkelon, Sderot, or Tel-Aviv. People who moved there, went there for incentives, but nobody took the leftist loons like Gush Shoalom and ISM seriously, and nobody considered that those territories would ever be given away. Those were nothing more than developetamental towns in the areas that were more dangerous than others because of the number of Arabs living there. The whole "people knew that the day will come" nonsense is just propaganda. Not even traitors like Rabin were going to give those territories away--the Arabs were supposed to have autonomy within Israel.

KettleWhistle
07-17-2005, 12:29 PM
WRONG.
The disengagement already changed PA "support" for terrorist.The disengagement changed nothing. It is simply a fight for power in the Arab colonies, and Abbas' attempts to not delay it and to not undermind the selling line about it. Once the disengagement is completed, Israel will be barriaged by rockets.

Womble
07-17-2005, 02:00 PM
Well, these people are being evicted from their homes by a bunch of government bureaucrats. Don't tell me that if someone told you that you are being evicted, you'd just say, "well, goodie" and happily move on.
How does that justify setting fairly dangerous road traps like that for innocent drivers? It's a freaking terrorist act, that's what it is. It's a miracle no one got killed over it.

KettleWhistle
07-17-2005, 03:20 PM
Now you're resorting to demagoguery. It wasn't terrorism. It was a prank, and a dangerous one at that. I am not saying that I approve, but I do understand, and I think everyone ought to understand that evicting people from their homes will get them very angry. It's the put yourself in their shoes kinda thing.

redcake
07-17-2005, 03:40 PM
When I was in Gaza City in 1992, it was neither treated as a foreign territory nor was it dangerous. It was Israel, just like any other place in Israel. No different from Ashkelon, Sderot, or Tel-Aviv.


Not to anyone who knew the history of the land or spent time in Israel prior to the 80's. It was a pit. I assure you, nobody put Gaza on equal footing with Tel-Aviv. Hell, nobody put Ashkelon on equal footing with Tel-Aviv. How many Sabras want to live in Gaza? This is a post-90's perception, and it was a mistake. People have short memories, or they've lost context.

The real building happened in the mid to late 80's right? With Oslo there was already talk of giving up land. It's foolish to think Gaza was never on the negotiating table until Sharon came along. So what's the real time frame of stability these people really had? No more then 15 years, and that's being gracious. There has long been an argument from Labor that protecting these settlements might be a liability to the entire nation. This is why the government offered incentives to populate the land, and stuck recent immigrants who didn't know better there. You can't say it's as desireable as Tel Aviv for goodness sakes - THAT is propaganda. I'll also remind you that much of Israels population, especially those living in Gaza were in lala land when it came to politics in 1992.

sharonbn
07-17-2005, 04:13 PM
Sharonbn,

I object to them being called "nuttier".

I certainly have nothing to do with them.

Nuttie
excuse me?
I am not this thread starter and did not use this word.
Please go bark at the right tree :rolleyes:

sharonbn
07-17-2005, 04:21 PM
I never talked with the people living in Gaza, but I have talked to people living in the West Bank settlements. Uniformily, all said that they would leave, with heavy hearts but leave nonetheless, if they thought that doing so would truly improve Israel's security situation and bring safety to Jews. As they see it, the opposite is what the disengagement will bring at this stage in Israel's relations with the Palestinians. There is no answer at the moment that will give any guarantee of progress. Many secular Israelis believe that by unilaterally leaving Gaza and portions of the West Bank, that will put the onus on the Palestinians to prove that they are also sincere about peace. But why is it that every time we come close to making some progress, the Palestinian terrorist groups blow things up? This time, we came so close to the disengagement. If Abbas does not have the ability or will to destroy the terrorist groups, then no progress will be made. The rockets will end up reaching farther inside Israel.

It is not up to civilians to make security assessments.

This is for two reasons:

1) What you see from up there is not what is seen from down here: the PM, defense minister and IDF chief of staff have knowledge and understanding that exceeds that of ordinery people feeding off the media and their heart's content. As far as security is concerned, the leadership is better equiped to make decisions.

2) The disengagement may be risky, but if we wait until we're 100% sure of the future, we will never move an inch. You have to take risks to gain progress. Again, its up to the gov't to weigh the pros and cons.

So, if (and a BIG if it is) the sole concern of the settlers is Israel's security, they should accept gov't judgement on the matter.

sharonbn
07-17-2005, 04:24 PM
The disengagement changed nothing. It is simply a fight for power in the Arab colonies, and Abbas' attempts to not delay it and to not undermind the selling line about it. Once the disengagement is completed, Israel will be barriaged by rockets.
I guess prophecy was indeed given to fools aftr all....

takeo
07-17-2005, 04:33 PM
No, not at all. When I was in Gaza City in 1992, it was neither treated as a foreign territory nor was it dangerous. It was Israel, just like any other place in Israel. No different from Ashkelon, Sderot, or Tel-Aviv. People who moved there, went there for incentives, but nobody took the leftist loons like Gush Shoalom and ISM seriously, and nobody considered that those territories would ever be given away. Those were nothing more than developetamental towns in the areas that were more dangerous than others because of the number of Arabs living there. The whole "people knew that the day will come" nonsense is just propaganda. Not even traitors like Rabin were going to give those territories away--the Arabs were supposed to have autonomy within Israel.

that's exactly why the Intifadeh was necessary, palestinians had no future at all, independance was a far dream in the 80's, never to be accomplished and the colonists were day after taking more land from them. Nowadays things changed, and there will only be peace once Israel handed over all lands conquered in 1967, including much of Eastern jerusalem.

KettleWhistle
07-17-2005, 04:45 PM
More nonsense. "Palestinians" are the colonists who came from foreign lands. Intifada was simply a terrorist war against Israel. As for pre-1967 borders, that would go against the U.N. resolution 242, as you were previously explained. Either way it is irrelevant. There wasn't peace before 1967, and there will not be one ever. Israel will only have peace when the Arab squaters are walled off, and expelled/bought out of Jerusalem and other Jewish areas. And stop lying about "taking land." Not a single Arab was removed from his home as a result of settlements.

Mediocrates
07-17-2005, 07:14 PM
from StandWithUs
http://standwithus.com/news_post.asp?NPI=361

These are just facts. you can draw whatever conclusions from them you wish

takeo
07-17-2005, 07:14 PM
More nonsense. "Palestinians" are the colonists who came from foreign lands. Intifada was simply a terrorist war against Israel. As for pre-1967 borders, that would go against the U.N. resolution 242, as you were previously explained. Either way it is irrelevant. There wasn't peace before 1967, and there will not be one ever. Israel will only have peace when the Arab squaters are walled off, and expelled/bought out of Jerusalem and other Jewish areas. And stop lying about "taking land." Not a single Arab was removed from his home as a result of settlements.

palestinian colonists? yeah right... let's not start this futile discussion all over again.


israel has no right on this lands, which didn't belong to israel untill 1967, you won't find a map outside israel where those territories are listed as "Israel", they are considered disputed territory, the colonists knew this, came to settle there for ideological reasons (and because of government incitements) so they shouldn't complain now. French settlers in Algeria had to move too after independance. Government should compensate them and relocate them to Israel. If they threaten to use violence against the IDF, just evacuate children and women and tell them to deal with the palestinians instead.
Resolution 242 did never allow Israel to keep the territories it says "territories conquered during the recent war" (in 1967), that's clear enough!

KettleWhistle
07-17-2005, 08:07 PM
Those lands are Jewish native lands. The Egyptians and Jordanians who colonized it are colonists. As for the meaning of resolution 242, you've been explained that. Either way it is irrelevant. Israel will keep parts of the disputed territories, and the Arab animals will be walled off and kept out. And people like me will continue to work for Israel and for justice, and for Jewish people living on Jewish native lands. And we will prevail.

takeo
07-17-2005, 08:26 PM
Those lands are Jewish native lands. The Egyptians and Jordanians who colonized it are colonists. As for the meaning of resolution 242, you've been explained that. Either way it is irrelevant. Israel will keep parts of the disputed territories, and the Arab animals will be walled off and kept out. And people like me will continue to work for Israel and for justice, and for Jewish people living on Jewish native lands. And we will prevail.

The Israeli people don't care for those troubled occupied territories, and some Israeli politicians do want a total withdrawel. Gaza will be the first step, next will be the Westbank, later on Golan heights and finally the question Jerusalem will be settled. Just wait and see, peace will prevail, at last.

KettleWhistle
07-17-2005, 08:32 PM
There will never be peace. Not because of Israelis, but because of the Arabs, who will not allow for it. But for most Israelis there will be peace when the Arab animals are walled off. Other than that, dream on.

Mira
07-18-2005, 10:06 AM
It is not up to civilians to make security assessments.

This is for two reasons:

1) What you see from up there is not what is seen from down here: the PM, defense minister and IDF chief of staff have knowledge and understanding that exceeds that of ordinery people feeding off the media and their heart's content. As far as security is concerned, the leadership is better equiped to make decisions.

2) The disengagement may be risky, but if we wait until we're 100% sure of the future, we will never move an inch. You have to take risks to gain progress. Again, its up to the gov't to weigh the pros and cons.

So, if (and a BIG if it is) the sole concern of the settlers is Israel's security, they should accept gov't judgement on the matter.


1. Exactly. We don't see ths actual beating that Sharon is getting from George Bush and the Eurocrats. We suspect, though, that Javier Solana where's pointy shoes.

2. Nobody requires 100% certainty. Let Abbas through either the PA security forces, Israeli security forces or both, take out Hamas, Islamic Jihad and all the others first.

MGB8
07-18-2005, 10:17 AM
Takeo,

You are braindead if you think that anything other than the destruction of Israel or an obliteration of the terrorists and there infrastructure will bring "peace," at least in the short to medium term (a generation or two.)

The UN certified Israel's pullout from Lebanon. Hezbollah still fires across the border and operates terrorist groups within the WB/GS. Hamas, IJ, and half of Fatah have been quite clear about their goal... and it ain't just the territories, dearie.

KSO
07-18-2005, 11:14 AM
There will never be peace. Not because of Israelis, but because of the Arabs, who will not allow for it. But for most Israelis there will be peace when the Arab animals are walled off. Other than that, dream on.
You Cossacs are realy cruel.

Mediocrates
07-18-2005, 11:14 AM
Israeli society has been remarkably unified on most national issues up through this expulsion. Or, it's been remarkably successful at burying those differences. In either case, Israeli society is not making a good show of managing what is in the big scheme of things a rather minor rift. The supporters of the pullout, like our own Republican leaders, who, after winning all the legal and political arguments, taking control of all the branches of government insist on government by Paranoia and Fear. It is they who are constantly overstating the case for the protestors and making up increasingly facetious rationales for martial law. But they've won, they get to execute on that action, they get to push the expulsion through. And for their part the residents of Gush Katif are overstating the risk as well as the peril to society. It is not the end of Israel. And even if they are successful they don't have a plan that runs past that. They have no follow-on no plan to sustain themselves and no way of managing long term their own status in Gaza. And each time they escalate the level of protest they play into the Haaretzniks hands who would be more than happy to pack them all on a boat somewhere, anywhere.

If nothing else, what Israelis should come to terms with is that anyone is expendable. The Gazans, the government, everyone. Yet it seems all of Israel ignores that simple fact and acts like a bunch of children intent on getting the last word. All your references to legalities and morality and justice and practicalities are worthless bullsh**t. All of it, from everyone because all of those issues are still going to be around long after the Gazans take over Gaza. What Israel has to come to terms with is that there is no longer officially one national narrative, no longer one story one icon for the Jewish state. And no one gets the last word.

sharonbn
07-18-2005, 12:15 PM
1. Exactly. We don't see ths actual beating that Sharon is getting from George Bush and the Eurocrats. We suspect, though, that Javier Solana where's pointy shoes.
It may or may not be. There is no evidence of this but I don't say it does not happen. Israel is receiving billions of US$ in aid so it makes itself exposed to pressure. we can always refuse US funds and then try to hold on to the Gaza settlements.

What I am saying is that I assume from your words you don't care much for US funds and I know the settlers think we can live happily without it. However, every Israeli PM, both on left and right, in Israel's 57 years of existence seem to place a lot of weight on these funds and these funds give US right to "speak its mind" on Israeli foreign policy and Israel usually listens.

US funds are indeed a major considerations of the overall security policy of Israeli gov't. and Israel is not the only cuntry in the world which has to accomodate for external pressure. This is all part of the things you only see from high up.


2. Nobody requires 100% certainty. Let Abbas through either the PA security forces, Israeli security forces or both, take out Hamas, Islamic Jihad and all the others first.

It would seem Abbas and the PA do indeed make a genuine effort to supress Qassam firing, if you recall the news items I posted on the beginning of this thread. It may be a smoke screen, it may be an internal struggle. We don't know yet, but unless you think IDF incurssion into the most densily populated city in the region is a good idea, I would give him a chance to prove himself first.

sharonbn
07-18-2005, 12:21 PM
Israeli society has been remarkably unified on most national issues up through this expulsion. Or, it's been remarkably successful at burying those differences.
You must be joking or have an extremely short memory.
Israeli society was divided on every single national issue, since the Lebanon incursion of 1982, so that makes it 23 years of division now, almost a generation.

but I know you will not waste your time answering me, so I won't bother proving my point. I will rely on the better memory of the other readers.

KettleWhistle
07-18-2005, 12:30 PM
I guess prophecy was indeed given to fools aftr all....We can see where actions of geniuses like those you support got Israel. If anything, the Israeli left ought to be ashamed, not defiant, after the Oslo fiasco.

KettleWhistle
07-18-2005, 12:34 PM
Israeli society has been remarkably unified on most national issues up through this expulsion. Or, it's been remarkably successful at burying those differences. In either case, Israeli society is not making a good show of managing what is in the big scheme of things a rather minor rift. The supporters of the pullout, like our own Republican leaders, who, after winning all the legal and political arguments, taking control of all the branches of government insist on government by Paranoia and Fear. It is they who are constantly overstating the case for the protestors and making up increasingly facetious rationales for martial law. But they've won, they get to execute on that action, they get to push the expulsion through. And for their part the residents of Gush Katif are overstating the risk as well as the peril to society. It is not the end of Israel. And even if they are successful they don't have a plan that runs past that. They have no follow-on no plan to sustain themselves and no way of managing long term their own status in Gaza. And each time they escalate the level of protest they play into the Haaretzniks hands who would be more than happy to pack them all on a boat somewhere, anywhere.

To compare Israelis with American Republicans is absurd. The problem in Israel is the large population of slackers and womanly men who grew up in safety and security, and don't really care for either their own country or for defending what is right. Instead, it is about running away. Why bother defending what's ours, when it can be left to the enemy? Whey concern ourselves with our problems when we can champion the causes of foreign people who want us dead? That's the MO of people like Ophra and other terrorism/treason supporters. And that is the problem.

KettleWhistle
07-18-2005, 12:41 PM
Not to anyone who knew the history of the land or spent time in Israel prior to the 80's. It was a pit. I assure you, nobody put Gaza on equal footing with Tel-Aviv. Hell, nobody put Ashkelon on equal footing with Tel-Aviv. How many Sabras want to live in Gaza? This is a post-90's perception, and it was a mistake. People have short memories, or they've lost context.

The real building happened in the mid to late 80's right? With Oslo there was already talk of giving up land. It's foolish to think Gaza was never on the negotiating table until Sharon came along. So what's the real time frame of stability these people really had? No more then 15 years, and that's being gracious. There has long been an argument from Labor that protecting these settlements might be a liability to the entire nation. This is why the government offered incentives to populate the land, and stuck recent immigrants who didn't know better there. You can't say it's as desireable as Tel Aviv for goodness sakes - THAT is propaganda. I'll also remind you that much of Israels population, especially those living in Gaza were in lala land when it came to politics in 1992.

I didn't say it was desirable. I said it was as much Israel as any other place in Israel. The whole Negev is a dump, and majority of people don't want to live there. Last time it checked it still was Israel.

Mira
07-18-2005, 12:52 PM
It may or may not be. There is no evidence of this but I don't say it does not happen. Israel is receiving billions of US$ in aid so it makes itself exposed to pressure. we can always refuse US funds and then try to hold on to the Gaza settlements.

What I am saying is that I assume from your words you don't care much for US funds and I know the settlers think we can live happily without it. However, every Israeli PM, both on left and right, in Israel's 57 years of existence seem to place a lot of weight on these funds and these funds give US right to "speak its mind" on Israeli foreign policy and Israel usually listens.

US funds are indeed a major considerations of the overall security policy of Israeli gov't. and Israel is not the only cuntry in the world which has to accomodate for external pressure. This is all part of the things you only see from high up.

It's very sad fact. The whole point of Israel was for the Jews to be in charge of our own destiny and our own security. It doesn't seem like much has changed since the days when the Jews looked to the Kings in Europe for protection from their hate-filled people. If history offers any lessons, it is that when the people rebeled against their kings, they always broke through the ghetto walls and went after the Jews. In the end, the kings left the Jews vulnurable trying to cover their own butts. Never trust in the word of kings because they will use you when it suits them and they will abandon you when it suits them. -Ethics of the Fathers.


It would seem Abbas and the PA do indeed make a genuine effort to supress Qassam firing, if you recall the news items I posted on the beginning of this thread. It may be a smoke screen, it may be an internal struggle. We don't know yet, but unless you think IDF incurssion into the most densily populated city in the region is a good idea, I would give him a chance to prove himself first.


Those articles that you posted are just from the last couple days. Nothing was done to dismantle the terror groups before and already Abbas is talking about returning to the internal truce to avoid civil war. All it takes is one offshoot of some terrorist group to not agree to the truce who at some opportunistic point sets the whole thing off again. And this is what is called the "cycle of violence."

SteveK
07-18-2005, 01:06 PM
Mira: It's very sad fact. Never trust in the word of kings because they will use you when it suits them and they will abandon you when it suits them. -Ethics of the Fathers.


Yup.

King Sharon long put these settlers on a pedestal in the sight of the world before kicking it over.

Mediocrates
07-18-2005, 01:12 PM
You must be joking or have an extremely short memory.
Israeli society was divided on every single national issue, since the Lebanon incursion of 1982, so that makes it 23 years of division now, almost a generation.

but I know you will not waste your time answering me, so I won't bother proving my point. I will rely on the better memory of the other readers.


So you think that complaints about pending civil war, assassination and whatnot is a sane and measured response? Ok, maybe you're just ungovernable then. Because at least here, when we protest we don't imagine that for a second it's the apocalypse. Good thing you're not French though, because if anyone ever dumped produce in the streets you'd whine that food should be outlawed and farmers thrown in jail..

Mediocrates
07-18-2005, 01:15 PM
To compare Israelis with American Republicans is absurd. The problem in Israel is the large population of slackers and womanly men who grew up in safety and security, and don't really care for either their own country or for defending what is right. Instead, it is about running away. Why bother defending what's ours, when it can be left to the enemy? Whey concern ourselves with our problems when we can champion the causes of foreign people who want us dead? That's the MO of people like Ophra and other terrorism/treason supporters. And that is the problem.


Oh yes, reserve a spot in Camp Freedom and Liberty near the arctic circle for me. :)

KettleWhistle
07-18-2005, 01:40 PM
Nonsense. There is sharp and clear line between having political differences and selling your own country to the enemy for political and/or economical gain. It's not an issue of political right or left.

MGB8
07-18-2005, 02:07 PM
Medio is right, and wrong. There was plenty of division with Lebanon, and with the idea of land for peace and Oslo, too. Only about half the country supported either. Nonetheless, people went along. But now Sharon, with a greater measure of support than Oslo, really, is actually giving something up - not just the Sinai, mind you, which Israel never really claimed, but parts of Israel which many Israelis do claim. And he is doing so in return for seemingly nothing. The opposition is, therefor, not as broad, but much more intense. People are not doubting Sharon the tactician, and this is, make no mistake, a tactical move within a larger war. People are fighting because, with his tactics, Sharon is threatening to put an end to the concept of Greater Israel. With disengagement, Greater Israel ends. Kaput. Over. And this is what has people up in arms. Despite a fact that a majority don't believe in greater Israel, a large minority strongly believes in it.

SteveK
07-18-2005, 02:17 PM
Nonsense. There is sharp and clear line between having political differences and selling your own country to the enemy for political and/or economical gain. It's not an issue of political right or left.


Hi SteveK,

Just to keep my sanity in the midst of what these diaspora Jews are saying,
I need to say this to you again.

That's what these diaspora Jews have been doing with their Homeland, Israel,-- selling it, --- GIVING IT --- to the enemy for their political and economic and social gain in what they can instead suck off the good life by living in Christian lands.

These diaspora Jews just don't grasp (yeah, they do) that they can't hold onto their Homeland like absentee landlords with a deed. These diaspora Jews must be here actually holding all the Land of Israel by actually living here.

No Israeli Government would have expelled hundreds of thousands of Jews living in areas of their God given land. And, the Negev would have already been a paradise with the financial and human resources that millions of these American Jews could have brought to their Homeland.

Mass aliya by these diaspora Jews was what was needed, is still needed, and will be even more greatly needed.

How can the 'L' be taken out of the banner of these diaspora Jews?


IN GOLD WE TRUST

KettleWhistle
07-18-2005, 02:27 PM
People are fighting because, with his tactics, Sharon is threatening to put an end to the concept of Greater Israel. With disengagement, Greater Israel ends. Kaput. Over. And this is what has people up in arms. Despite a fact that a majority don't believe in greater Israel, a large minority strongly believes in it.Sorry, not buying it. The so-called "Greater Israel" is a nonsense propagandist idea developed to divide Israel. There is no, and never has been such a thing. There is Israel and there are other countries. Those territories were effectively parts of Israel by all practical means until Rabin, Peres, and Beilin had secret meetings with Abbas in Cairo and got the PLO work with them for Rabin's election.

The paratroopers that landed on Temple Mount in 1967 weren't crying because they were building any sort of "Greater Israel" and people weren't cheering them for any reasons of faux grandeur. It was, and it still is, about our people living freely and proudly on our native land. This land is Israel, and any idea of the grand plan cooked up in Golda's kitchen that would return these territories slowly and in the process will force Arabs to accept Israel is as much bunk as the ideas of the resurrected Solomon's Empire and the "Greater Israel."

SteveK
07-18-2005, 02:46 PM
Sorry, not buying it. The so-called "Greater Israel" is a nonsense propagandist idea developed to divide Israel. There is no, and never has been such a thing. There is Israel and there are other countries. Those territories were effectively parts of Israel by all practical means until Rabin, Peres, and Beilin had secret meeting with Abbas in Cairo and had the PLO work with them for Rabin's election. The paratroopers that landed on Temple Mount in 1967 weren't crying because they were building any sort of "Greater Israel" and people weren't cheering them for any reasons of faux grandeur. It was, and it still is, about our people living freely and proudly on our native land.


Hi SteveK,

Keep calm. You know the diaspora Jews. You were one of them at one time in your distant, Thank God, life.

Remember, SteveK, it's only a forum where all these diaspora Jews can entertain their fantasies of belonging to their native Homeland while they sit comfortably in places like California. I'm going to vomit....

Remember, Stevek, you actually live in your Homeland,- their Homeland.
Look out the window from your Haifa home and look at the beautiful Mediterranean Sea. Look to the distance at Mount Carmel where Elijah The Prophet received a miracle from God to consume his sacrifices to the demise and death of the idolators in front of the Children of Israel. Look around you, SteveK. Stay in reality. Don't let these diaspora Jews drive you off the deep end. Look at the building in the distance where the Israeli tax authorities have their main offices in the North who take such a chunk out of your pay. Does that help you get your feet back on the ground?

Goodnight, SteveK. You have to get up early tomorrow for work. There are taxes and bills to pay in your Jewish Homeland too.

MGB8
07-18-2005, 03:05 PM
Of course its about "greater Israel." All that Greater Israel means is that all the land from the River to the Sea should be Israel. Its an emotional, sometimes a religious, call to arms. There are strategic reasons, too.

These lands WERE NOT part of Israel, either. You can say "effectively," but they weren't annexed. Unlike the Golan! Unlike Jerusalem! Why not ... because of some 3-3.5 million odd people on these lands that would have to either be granted citizenship or expelled. Neither of those options was attractive. Permanent autonomy was not practicable - we know that.. the appartheid calls would come soon enough, and with it the consequences such as suffered by South Africa.

But Gaza drives a stake through the heart of "greater Israel." It states, pretty much for certain, that Israel is willing to relinquish claim on some land between the river and the sea.

I'm sick of the phony arguments - the "well, why not give up on Israel entirely, its in a sea of enemies" cr@p. Israel CANNOT absorb the Arabs of Gaza and the WB. It CANNOT expell them, barring a major war/ultra-succesful terror strike. It CANNOT continue the status quo, with this level of terrorism and permanent authonomy for the Arabs... yes, you DO need to factor in the International communities reaction to this.

So you make hard choices. You give up real estate that you claim, because by giving that up you protect more important real estate. The Pal Arabs are not going to just go away. And SteveK can cry and shout and complain all he likes, but the American diaspora isn't going to all come and live in Israel, nor the European. So if Israelis like SteveK want to curse and renounce the diaspora community... so be it. Fortunately, there are plenty more smarter Israelis that realize that the diaspora is a massive strategic asset.

When Sharon said that painful concessions were going to be made, he wan't kidding. It is also the right thing to do. You sacrifice Greater Israel, not because you like the enemies or are collaporating, but in order to crush them.

And the support for the Murder or Rabin is atrocious, KW. He was an idiot, not a traitor. Oslo wasn't wrong because it recognized that the Pal Arab were here and began negotiations. Oslo was wrong because it brought the Tunisians back into Israel. Things should have been worked out with the locals - things would have been better. And Jordanian textbooks should have been replaced a long time ago, too, but Israelis just didn't want to deal with the Pal Arabs at all, so they let the Jordanians educate the kids. And now we have this.

The idea that Israel can survive without cutting off the WB and Gaza at some point, that's pure fantasy.




Sorry, not buying it. The so-called "Greater Israel" is a nonsense propagandist idea developed to divide Israel. There is no, and never has been such a thing. There is Israel and there are other countries. Those territories were effectively parts of Israel by all practical means until Rabin, Peres, and Beilin had secret meetings with Abbas in Cairo and got the PLO work with them for Rabin's election.

The paratroopers that landed on Temple Mount in 1967 weren't crying because they were building any sort of "Greater Israel" and people weren't cheering them for any reasons of faux grandeur. It was, and it still is, about our people living freely and proudly on our native land. This land is Israel, and any idea of the grand plan cooked up in Golda's kitchen that would return these territories slowly and in the process will force Arabs to accept Israel is as much bunk as the ideas of the resurrected Solomon's Empire and the "Greater Israel."

KettleWhistle
07-18-2005, 05:10 PM
Of course its about "greater Israel." All that Greater Israel means is that all the land from the River to the Sea should be Israel. Its an emotional, sometimes a religious, call to arms. There are strategic reasons, too.
It was a call for arms for a tiny minority. But now it is an overused propagandist tool that is only utilized for division and demonization of a portion of the Israeli population.


These lands WERE NOT part of Israel, either. You can say "effectively," but they weren't annexed. Unlike the Golan! Unlike Jerusalem! Why not ... because of some 3-3.5 million odd people on these lands that would have to either be granted citizenship or expelled. Neither of those options was attractive. Permanent autonomy was not practicable - we know that.. the appartheid calls would come soon enough, and with it the consequences such as suffered by South Africa.

But Gaza drives a stake through the heart of "greater Israel." It states, pretty much for certain, that Israel is willing to relinquish claim on some land between the river and the sea.

I'm sick of the phony arguments - the "well, why not give up on Israel entirely, its in a sea of enemies" cr@p. Israel CANNOT absorb the Arabs of Gaza and the WB. It CANNOT expell them, barring a major war/ultra-succesful terror strike. It CANNOT continue the status quo, with this level of terrorism and permanent authonomy for the Arabs... yes, you DO need to factor in the International communities reaction to this.

I pretty much agree, and I support the idea of disengagement for those very reasons, but what I was saying was along different lines. Perhaps I didn't express myself well. The point here is that moving to the "territories" was no different than moving to another place in Israel. It really wasn't any different than moving to a developmental town in the Negev. That people would be kicked out of there at government's whims was neither discussed or even considered by anyone involved. What is going on right now is strategically right, but undemocratic and morally wrong, not because of the ends, but because of the means.



And the support for the Murder or Rabin is atrocious, KW. He was an idiot, not a traitor. Oslo wasn't wrong because it recognized that the Pal Arab were here and began negotiations. Oslo was wrong because it brought the Tunisians back into Israel. Things should have been worked out with the locals - things would have been better. And Jordanian textbooks should have been replaced a long time ago, too, but Israelis just didn't want to deal with the Pal Arabs at all, so they let the Jordanians educate the kids. And now we have this.
I don't support the murder of Rabin per say, but I understand it. I would've much rather seen him in jail, where he truly belonged, as he and his associates did break the law. It is true that many things were done the wrong way. The problem now is that this trend is being continued and defended under the banner of "the right thing to do."

MGB8
07-18-2005, 05:16 PM
It was different, though. Everyone knew that the land was disputed. A lot of the people moved there DURING Oslo, and they were aware of the possible consequences.

More than that, Israel could just leave the, not expell the settlers. What would happen then to them?

Nor is it undemocratic - its within the governments rights and the government was democratically elected. A referendum would have been preferable, but it is not necessary.

KettleWhistle
07-18-2005, 05:42 PM
It was different, though. Everyone knew that the land was disputed. A lot of the people moved there DURING Oslo, and they were aware of the possible consequences. Only those who moved there during Oslo, and very few of others.


More than that, Israel could just leave the, not expell the settlers. What would happen then to them?
Well, it couldn't/can't leave them. They are Israeli citizens and state does have some responsibilities in that regard. Frankly, I believe that Begin screwed up when he didn't insist on Egypt taking Gaza in exchange for some land in Sinai. But now, it is really a matter of how it is done.

MGB8
07-18-2005, 07:28 PM
I agree with that - we should have kept the oil fields. Frankly, "peace" with Egypt might have been a huge mistake to begin with. Imagine if we had the Sinai to bargain with with the Pal Arabs... I mean, it would mean anything, they'd still want Jerusalem and Ramallah, etc... but it could be another offer.

Meanwhile, Egypt runs the protocols on state media.. some peace.

Mira
07-18-2005, 08:40 PM
I agree with that - we should have kept the oil fields. Frankly, "peace" with Egypt might have been a huge mistake to begin with. Imagine if we had the Sinai to bargain with with the Pal Arabs... I mean, it would mean anything, they'd still want Jerusalem and Ramallah, etc... but it could be another offer.

Meanwhile, Egypt runs the protocols on state media.. some peace.

On the other hand, peace with Egypt gave Israel the opportunity to develop its economy and was the precursor for peace with Jordan. Sadat died for peace with Israel and his willingness to even recognize Israel at that time should not be dismissed. Had Israel been able to negotiate peace with Syria (and thus Lebanon as well) before Oslo, Hezbollah's power in Lebanon would have been undermined and we might have had an agreement with the Palestinians already.

Womble
07-19-2005, 12:18 AM
Sadat died for peace with Israel.
I don't think he was planning to.

Ophra
07-19-2005, 12:38 AM
Three forgotten lessons
by Moshe Negbi

Israeli leaders tell their Palestinian counterparts they must enforce law and order. They state that this is a pre-condition not only for peace but for maintaining a viable Palestinian entity. The Israelis stress the particular importance of enforcing the law upon militant armed extremists who do not accept the authority of the duly-elected government. They call upon the Palestinians to draw a lesson from the "Altalena" crisis.

In June 1948, in the midst of Israel's War of Independence, a militant Jewish group smuggled to the shores of Israel a ship named Altalena, loaded with weapons and ammunition as well as Holocaust survivors from Europe. When the Jewish militants refused to surrender the arms to the Israeli army, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion gave orders to attack them, and the army fired upon the ship until it exploded. This determination to quell rebellion and enforce absolute obedience saved the infant Israeli democracy. "You must now demonstrate the same determination and not be afraid to have your own Altalena," the Israelis preach to the Palestinian leadership.

But the sad truth is that the lesson of Altalena has been long forgotten by the Israeli leaders themselves. Ben-Gurion's successors have lacked his determination and are very reluctant to confront extremist right-wing zealots when they break the law. This failure to enforce law and order actually explains how the illegal phenomenon of Jewish settlements in the Palestinian occupied territories came to be. The Israeli authorities knew very well that international law prohibits such settlements. At the beginning of the occupation Israeli law had prohibited them as well. However, Jewish extremists blatantly broke the law and the authorities, instead of evicting and punishing the illegal settlers, embraced them and gave them assistance and legitimacy.

The dismal failure to impose law and order persisted when Jewish settlers in the territories became violent and began harassing their Palestinian neighbors. In 1982, an official report by Deputy Attorney General Yehudit Karp confirmed allegations that settlers who assaulted Palestinians were generally neither arrested nor prosecuted. Twelve years later, following the massacre of 29 Palestinian worshippers by a Jewish extremist at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, the commission of inquiry headed by Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar devoted an entire chapter in its report to the failure of law enforcement and noted that this failure encouraged the law-breakers and escalated settler violence.

This unchecked and unpunished violence bred terrible counter violence. Indeed, 40 days after the massacre of the Palestinian worshippers in Hebron, at the end of the traditional Muslim period of mourning, Palestinian zealots initiated their horrifying, inhuman series of suicide bombings against Israelis. Thus was created a vicious circle that engulfed the Oslo Accords in rivers of blood.

But the malignant effect of the lack of law enforcement has kept on spreading. Violent settlers in the territories, encouraged by the impotence of the authorities and probably feeling they are above the law, have begun to assault not only Palestinians, but also the very soldiers sent to defend them. Recently a paratroop battalion commander was quoted as complaining that in the Jewish settlement of Yitzhar, in the Nablus area, "there exists a gang of law-breakers; I do not fear entering a Palestinian village the way I fear entering Yitzhar."
Again, the authorities have not only avoided punishing the "gang of law-breakers", but reprimanded the soldiers who were beaten by the settlers! When a company commander serving in Yitzhar complained in a newspaper interview that Jewish settlers threw stones at his soldiers, threatened them with guns, and cut off their water supply, the Israeli army reprimanded him for giving an unauthorized interview, and apologized to the settlers.

Similar but even more amazing is the complacent and lukewarm response of the authorities to dangerous incitement by prominent and influential rabbis who have repeatedly called upon their devout disciples, both soldiers and civilians, to disobey the law as well as military commands in order to prevent the prime minister from carrying out disengagement as approved by the Cabinet and the Knesset. Again, instead of prosecuting the inciters, army generals and Justice Ministry officials paid them complimentary visits, begging them in vain for moderation.

This is especially disturbing if one remembers that such rabbinical incitement against the democratically approved Oslo Accords led to the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. The assassin himself, Yigal Amir, said in his interrogation on the night of the murder: "Without a religious ruling issued by some rabbis I know, I would have had difficulty in committing the murder." A mere ten years later, the painful lesson that incitement "in the name of God" can be lethal has seemingly been forgotten. The very rabbis who incited a decade ago against Rabin also went unpunished.

When our attorney-general is required to explain this tolerance for rabbinical incitement he likes to speak about the need to respect freedom of speech. This explanation demonstrates that he overlooks still another historic lesson: the fate of the Weimar Republic, which was established in Germany after World War I. In the 1960s the Israel Supreme Court cited this lesson when it ruled that a democracy has the right, indeed the duty, to defend itself against those who try to use speech not as a tool of persuasion but rather as a tool to paralyze, frustrate and eventually destroy the democratic process. The supreme court justices--some of whom were themselves educated in the Weimar Republic and were first-hand witnesses to its demise--emphasized that democracy in Germany died because it let its enemies use political rights, and specifically free speech, to discredit and undermine it. No democracy, they said, can afford to repeat this fatal mistake.

Thus three vital lessons--the lesson of Altalena, the lesson of the Rabin assassination, and the lesson of the Weimar Republic--are now totally ignored by the authorities charged with the responsibility to impose law and order on those who rebel against the democratic system. Israeli democracy, just like the Palestinian Authority, is left defenseless against the zealots who seek to destroy it from within.

Moshe Negbi is a senior lecturer at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the legal commentator for Israel Radio.

Ophra
07-19-2005, 01:21 AM
http://info.jpost.com/C005/Supplements/Disengagement/i/ph.gal/0707.09.jpg

MGB8
07-19-2005, 07:31 AM
Sadat has been quoted afterwords saying something quite less, along the lines of "we got the oil fields and they got a peace of paper, it will be up to future generations to get the rest back." Israel got a Hudna, not a peace deal, and the proof is in how Egypt has educated their citizens towards Israel. Nor can you, IMO, tie peace with Jordan to peace with Egypt. Jordan was always friendlier, who is to say it would not have happened, otherwise.

It has bought two decades without a major war. We don't know that Egypt would have invaded, otherwise. In fact, there is reason to doubt that they would have. They haven't been strong enough. They still aren't, yet. But the day that they are... if they want to see if Israel's nuclear option is a bluff... (which they would have had to deal with in an attack anyways...)

Its history. You cannot change what was done. But it is far from certain that "peace" with Egypt has been a good deal, or that it will hold.

As for the settlements issue - first, there is a difference in the types of law and order you are talking about (equating putting up RVs on hills and shooting/blowing up people is a very leftist thing to do, so I am not surprised), second, the large part of the problem was with legal settlements, not the illegal ones - it is the very existence of settlements on disputed land that is used as an excuse.


On the other hand, peace with Egypt gave Israel the opportunity to develop its economy and was the precursor for peace with Jordan. Sadat died for peace with Israel and his willingness to even recognize Israel at that time should not be dismissed. Had Israel been able to negotiate peace with Syria (and thus Lebanon as well) before Oslo, Hezbollah's power in Lebanon would have been undermined and we might have had an agreement with the Palestinians already.

sharonbn
07-19-2005, 09:37 AM
Israel's refusal to negotiate peace with Egypt in the years following the 67 war, was a direct cause for the yom kipur war of 1973, with 3000+ Israeli casualties. which are more than the two intifadas put together. So, playing what-if scenarios is anybody's game. But peace in 1977 was 100% correct, given recent history of the times.

KettleWhistle
07-19-2005, 09:52 AM
That's nonsense. It was not Israel's refusal, but the Arab refusal. Ever heard of the 3 "No's?"

sharonbn
07-19-2005, 09:56 AM
the 3 no's were declared in Khartum in 1969. In 1971, Egypt gained a new president. The new president delivered messages of desire to strike a deal of "Sinai for peace". The messages were delivered to Israeli PM, Golda Meir, by UN envoy, Gunar Yaring, in 1971. Israel turned down the proposal, thnking it can hold on to Sinai. the rest is history.

but don't let historical facts stand in the way of your conviction.

sharonbn
07-19-2005, 09:57 AM
Israel consistently refused to give up land that it cannot hold, in practical terms, letting itself sink in illusions of grandeur until it is forced to withdraw under the weight of reality and of course, at worse terms then it could get.

Israel should have insisted that Egypt takes control over Gaza strip back in 1979. In fact, Sadat requested to get back these lands in Camp David. But Begin refused, not because he believed that GS is Palestinian land, but because he wanted to keep the lands under Israeli control, defying common sense that showed Israel cannot retain control on the lands indefinitely.

In 1985, Israel had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to give back WB to Jordan. Yes, Jordan, not Palestinians. King Hussein appointed himself representative of Palestinian people and signed a deal with then Israeli foreign minister, Peres, in which Israel would withdraw from WB, giving control to Jordan (which still maintained official representation in Pal cities) in exchange for peace with Jordan. However, Israeli PM, Shamir refused to endorse the deal. Following the failure of the London agreement, Hussein closed his offices in WB and relinquished claims for sovereignty on the region. Now we are stuck with Palestinians and whatever the future agreement will be, it will have worse terms then what we could have got from Hussein back in 1985.

We can only “thank” ourselves for the predicaments we face in present times and bad solutions we are forced to undertake.

Mediocrates
07-19-2005, 10:02 AM
So basically the fault is Israel's for not jumping on any offer. Ok why not all of the West Bank and Jerusalem, Golan then. That would seem to be a concrete offer too.

KettleWhistle
07-19-2005, 10:14 AM
Israel consistently refused to give up land that it cannot hold, in practical terms, letting itself sink in illusions of grandeur until it is forced to withdraw under the weight of reality and of course, at worse terms then it could get.

Israel should have insisted that Egypt takes control over Gaza strip back in 1979. In fact, Sadat requested to get back these lands in Camp David.
Begin was too euphoric at the prospect of peace with Egypt, much like morons like Gush Shoalom get giggly and can't stop when they hear word "peace." It was not any issue of grandeur--there was nothing grandiouse in Gaza, as opposed to Sinai's oil refineries, Taba tourist area, uranium ore deposits, and Mount Sinai itself. And it was virtually unpopulated.



In 1985, Israel had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to give back WB to Jordan. Yes, Jordan, not Palestinians. King Hussein appointed himself representative of Palestinian people and signed a deal with then Israeli foreign minister, Peres, in which Israel would withdraw from WB, giving control to Jordan (which still maintained official representation in Pal cities) in exchange for peace with Jordan. However, Israeli PM, Shamir refused to endorse the deal. Following the failure of the London agreement, Hussein closed his offices in WB and relinquished claims for sovereignty on the region. Now we are stuck with Palestinians and whatever the future agreement will be, it will have worse terms then what we could have got from Hussein back in 1985.
And Shamir has done the right thing. It was Rabin who was wrong. Unlike Gaza, the WB not only could be retained had they settled the FSU immigrants in there, but it is also the core part of Jewish national identity which contains more of our history than pretty much any other place in Israel, save for Jerusalem. It's not about grandeur or control, but about keeping what's ours.

Mediocrates
07-19-2005, 10:33 AM
Well in either case, the PLOistanians have run out of tricks in their one trick pony of blowing innocent people up. They have no plan-B. Similarly the Haaretzniks have run out of options and never had any, besides surrender and potlatch. They too have nothing to offer after they, in the end, have nothing left to offer. It's a weak approach with no plan-B either. And since neither the Hamas or the Haaretzniks can see beyond their own failure we will see them dig in and scream at each other come to the other side.

sharonbn
07-19-2005, 11:19 AM
like so many other, this discussion is also a waste of time.

MGB8
07-19-2005, 11:52 AM
Sharonbn,

You are right, in part, about the Yom Kippur war... although Israel did not "cause" the war... the Arabs invaded, they did not have grounds, really, to invade - '67 was a defensive war and the lost the Sinai. Nor would they have stopped at regaining the Sinai. Don't let history get too much in your way, either.

As for the WB, I have heard similar, but what does "giving back the WB" mean? What does a "peace treaty" mean? Its a piece of paper, Sharonbn. It is, essentially, worth only the intentions of the two parties. Would Egypt have attacked after 73 if Israel had not given the Sinai up? Who knows... its doubtful, though. Will Egypt attack Israel in the future? Very possible - Egypt is getting stronger, the motivation is still there, perpetuated by the Government, and an excuse can always be come up with. Did Israel underestimate the demographic issues of Gaza and the WB? Clearly. Did they know it at the time? Doubtful - they probably believed that thre were fewer Pal Arabs who would not grow as quickly, that more Pal Arabs would leave the territories, and that Israel's population, through immigration and internal growth, would grow more quickly. Strategically and resource wise, there were certainly reasons to keep both the GS and even more so the WB.

SteveK
07-19-2005, 02:28 PM
... And SteveK can cry and shout and complain all he likes, but the American diaspora isn't going to all come and live in Israel, nor the European. So if Israelis like SteveK want to curse and renounce the diaspora community... so be it. Fortunately, there are plenty more smarter Israelis that realize that the diaspora is a massive strategic asset. ...



MGB8:

You diaspora Jews are a massive strategic asset?

Your solution to the Gaza "problem" of Arab demographics was to give up the land. You diaspora Jews make liabilities for us here in Israel, and not assets. What will be your solution when these Arab murderers, torturers, and international pirates, now more emboldened and justified in the international political arena, come demanding the separation of Jerusalem between Jews and Muslims, and the relinquishing of the Golan? Will your "asset mangement" for The State of Israel also bring forward the arguement to expell the Jews out of this land too?

And, your lure to be better Jews with you in America or Europe,
and richer ones too, than in Israel, is certainly appealing, and desireable to the "smarter" Israelis.

Please tell me about you diaspora Jews being "a massive strategic asset" in pulling Israel out of our tragic tailspin into surrender,--- without your massive strategic asset of aliya here.

Mira
07-19-2005, 03:10 PM
As for the settlements issue - first, there is a difference in the types of law and order you are talking about (equating putting up RVs on hills and shooting/blowing up people is a very leftist thing to do, so I am not surprised), second, the large part of the problem was with legal settlements, not the illegal ones - it is the very existence of settlements on disputed land that is used as an excuse.

Although you replied to me, I'm going to assume that this was for someone else.

redcake
07-19-2005, 03:15 PM
Egypt continued to commit acts of war against Israel between 1967-1973 including: constant threats through diplomatic channels, mounting troop activities along the borders, and then finally an order to remove the UN observers.

MGB8
07-19-2005, 05:05 PM
Although you replied to me, I'm going to assume that this was for someone else.

Ophra.

sharonbn
07-19-2005, 11:31 PM
Egypt continued to commit acts of war against Israel between 1967-1973 including: constant threats through diplomatic channels, mounting troop activities along the borders, and then finally an order to remove the UN observers.
just to set the record straight:

There were no UN observers after 67 stationed between Israel and Egypt.
It was Nasser who ordered UN observers to be removed, and it was before the 67 war.

Egypt continued to commit "acts of war" against Israel between 67 and 71, until Nasser died and was replaced by Sadat. This period is known as the war of attrition.

Mediocrates
07-20-2005, 07:08 AM
Maybe you can make Ken Livingston the mayor of al Quds. He's jump at the chance I'm sure.

sharonbn
07-20-2005, 07:43 AM
Maybe you can make Jean-Marie Le Pen the mayor of Gush Katif. He's jump at the chance I'm sure.

Mediocrates
07-20-2005, 07:49 AM
Hey it's your country. If you want to take a dump all over it, that's your problem. The thing is that I really don't understand what the Red Ken outrage is all about. I'm pretty sure you could get him elected to a midlevel post somewhere in Israel - maybe mayor maybe something else but in either case his PoV isn't all that different from yours. He's just blunt and inarticulate about it in that typically anglo-saxon way.

Mediocrates
07-20-2005, 08:04 AM
C'mon tell me you don't agree with this?


"Under foreign occupation and denied a right to vote, denied the right to run your own affairs ... I suspect that if it had happened here in England we would have produced a lot of suicide bombers ourselves," said Livingstone.
"But I don't just denounce suicide bombers. I denounce those governments which use indiscriminate slaughter to advance their foreign policy."

That's pretty much straight out of your playbook. Ok so he screams about the evil Yid menace a lot and about how Jews and Israelis are the scourge of the earth. Big freakin deal. That would get you a guest column on Ha'aretz.

redcake
07-20-2005, 11:37 AM
just to set the record straight:

There were no UN observers after 67 stationed between Israel and Egypt.
It was Nasser who ordered UN observers to be removed, and it was before the 67 war.

Egypt continued to commit "acts of war" against Israel between 67 and 71, until Nasser died and was replaced by Sadat. This period is known as the war of attrition.

You're incorrect. So yes, let's set the record straight:

Sadat didn't show up dressed like a giant dove when he arrived in October, 1970. He wanted Israel to agree to prewar borders, he pledged support for the PLO, and openly stated he would likley need another war to win over his the support of his own people before he could commit to peace. Which is exactly what he did.

There were UNTSO observer outposts right up until the war in 1973, which were then re-established on October 23rd, after the cease fire.

sharonbn
07-20-2005, 12:56 PM
C'mon tell me you don't agree with this?
I can show the difference, but it would be a waste of my time.

Mediocrates
07-20-2005, 01:05 PM
Ok so israelinsider is unabashedly opinionated but given that, what about this?


http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/6066.htm

takeo
07-21-2005, 12:46 AM
Takeo,

You are braindead if you think that anything other than the destruction of Israel or an obliteration of the terrorists and there infrastructure will bring "peace," at least in the short to medium term (a generation or two.)

The UN certified Israel's pullout from Lebanon. Hezbollah still fires across the border and operates terrorist groups within the WB/GS. Hamas, IJ, and half of Fatah have been quite clear about their goal... and it ain't just the territories, dearie.

If the palestinian government wants to, they can "obliterate" the terrorists, but that willingness depends on israel's willingness to give back the occupied territories and recognise palestine.
Lebanon keeps the Hesbollah in check, if not the situation would be very different in northern Israel. Since the withdrawel there's something very close to peace in Northern israel, only from time to time disturbed by some incidents, but nothing like the situation before the withdrawel. So you don't have to be braindead to think progress is possible.

sharonbn
07-21-2005, 01:46 AM
If the palestinian government wants to, they can "obliterate" the terrorists, but that willingness depends on israel's willingness to give back the occupied territories and recognise palestine.
Lebanon keeps the Hesbollah in check, if not the situation would be very different in northern Israel. Since the withdrawel there's something very close to peace in Northern israel, only from time to time disturbed by some incidents, but nothing like the situation before the withdrawel. So you don't have to be braindead to think progress is possible.
I have to disagree with you takeo, on that one.

terrorism cannot be justified by military occupation, or any other oppression. Targeting innocent civilians is not an acceptable form of freedom fighting. Palestinian fight for freedom from Israeli occupation should be conducted while observing ethical war code. Yes, even in war, not all is fair. there are things one cannot do, no matter what the other side is doing. That includes, for instance, use of WMD, torture of POWs, and terrorism, defined as targeting civilians.
So if Palestinian gov't wishes to be acknowledged as a credible reliable gov't by the world nations, as opposed to a terrorist group, it can never condone terrorism, or allow terrorist cells to freely operate from within its borders. if Palestinians want to fight Isaeli occupation (as they should) then they can target military outposts and personnel. I know its tougher then blowing up a shopping mall, but then again, freedom does come at high price.

There can never be justification for terrorism. Same as there can never be justification for oppression.

Ophra
07-21-2005, 02:13 AM
Ophra.

If it was for me do you care to explain further ?
I truly do not get your point .

Ophra
07-21-2005, 02:17 AM
I have to disagree with you takeo, on that one.

terrorism cannot be justified by military occupation, or any other oppression. Targeting innocent civilians is not an acceptable form of freedom fighting. Palestinian fight for freedom from Israeli occupation should be conducted while observing ethical war code. Yes, even in war, not all is fair. there are things one cannot do, no matter what the other side is doing. That includes, for instance, use of WMD, torture of POWs, and terrorism, defined as targeting civilians.
So if Palestinian gov't wishes to be acknowledged as a credible reliable gov't by the world nations, as opposed to a terrorist group, it can never condone terrorism, or allow terrorist cells to freely operate from within its borders. if Palestinians want to fight Isaeli occupation (as they should) then they can target military outposts and personnel. I know its tougher then blowing up a shopping mall, but then again, freedom does come at high price.

There can never be justification for terrorism. Same as there can never be justification for oppression.

"" There can never be justification for terrorism. Same as there can never be justification for oppression ""

With you 100% on this sharonbn.

Mediocrates
07-21-2005, 06:41 AM
So what? There can never be justification for famine, child sacrifice and the return of disco either. Is that how you do things? You check first on whether you believe you're justified? Maybe have a conference?

sharonbn
07-21-2005, 07:27 AM
So what? There can never be justification for famine, child sacrifice and the return of disco either. Is that how you do things? You check first on whether you believe you're justified? Maybe have a conference?
Is there a point here, or is this a direction-less rant? what's your motto? there's already evil abundant in the world, so why bother have a conscience? since whatever I do won't make any difference?
People get shot in our cities on a daily basis, how do we address this problem? hmmmm let me see... ohh I know! The world's already full of starved abused kids, as well as bad music. so lets dismiss all our police forces, and give everyone a gun and tell them to defend themselves.

You can argue that my moral values are incorrect, too naive or whatever. But what you say is why bother having any moral values to begin with? we should all grab what we can grab, step on whatever or whoever is in our way and seek no justification from no one including ourselves for nothing we do.

Well, here's a news flash: this is exactly what Al Qeuida and all the other terrorists say.

Mediocrates
07-21-2005, 08:09 AM
Is there a point here, or is this a direction-less rant? what's your motto?

My motto is that your feel good greeting card sensitivities are puerile.



there's already evil abundant in the world, so why bother have a conscience?


Yes precisely, when there's expulsion to be done, why bother with messy questions like that.


since whatever I do won't make any difference?
People get shot in our cities on a daily basis, how do we address this problem?

Well I'm not sure of that. What I am positive of is that halfassed sentiments of "Do No Evil" don't really advance anything to anyone.


hmmmm let me see... ohh I know! The world's already full of starved abused kids, as well as bad music. so lets dismiss all our police forces, and give everyone a gun and tell them to defend themselves.

Or we could take the Haaretznik approach, scream that the sky is falling and arrest eveyone who can spell the word o-r-a-n-g-e.



You can argue that my moral values are incorrect, too naive or whatever. But what you say is why bother having any moral values to begin with?

The point is, unless you're willfully being obtuse, justification is what it is. Do you want to justify everything you do? Is justification it's own reward? Fine, you justified it. Mazel!


we should all grab what we can grab, step on whatever or whoever is in our way and seek no justification from no one including ourselves for nothing we do.

We should worry about getting permission first and foremost. We should never really worry about accomplishing anything as long as we can feel justfied in proposing it.

sharonbn
07-21-2005, 08:34 AM
My motto is that your feel good greeting card sensitivities are puerile.
At least they're MY sensitivities. Your entire motto is a response to my statement? you don't have any wisdom pearl of your own?
This is soooo "offense is the best defense"


Yes precisely, when there's expulsion to be done, why bother with messy questions like that.
When you right a wrong, you may hurt the original offenders. this is when you need justification so you know you're doing things right.


Or we could take the Haaretznik approach, scream that the sky is falling and arrest eveyone who can spell the word o-r-a-n-g-e.
Ohh I see, when the left is actually doing something (as much as the pullout can be called the left's action, that's another debate) then you say that its justifications are a mock up, and at the same time you accuse the left of doing nothing? well, which is it? if all the Israeli left does is sit and cry the sky is falling, then you cannot blame it for the so called "expulsion". if it is responsible for it, then it is actually doing something.

a nice lose lose scenario you cooked up here


The point is, unless you're willfully being obtuse, justification is what it is. Do you want to justify everything you do? Is justification it's own reward? Fine, you justified it. Mazel!
I already answered that. You can take ANY abstract concept ever conceived by a human being and empty it of its meaning by saying that its just "words". So the historical connection that binds the Jewish people to the land of Israel, the original drive of the Zionist movement and the most popular reason rightists have for staying in Gaza - its just feel good words? The concept of "Freedom" from tyranny, the drive behind American independence, French revolution, Russian revolution, and perhaps the number one cause for war fatalities, its just a feel good word, right ? anyone, inc'l tyrants and dictators can play with the word and claim to be freedom fighters, so the entire concept is an empty shell?
wow.... a really nice guideline. Sooooo pragmatic.

minusthejihad
07-21-2005, 08:37 AM
SharonBN,

You get so angry when you are backed up to a wall.

sharonbn
07-21-2005, 08:44 AM
SharonBN,

You get so angry when you are backed up to a wall.
once again..... typical "offense is best defense"
You have something to contribute of your own to the discussion? no? you have some insightful comment to make? no? never mind.... keep sputing empty meaningless unproductive offensive responses, the smoke screen will cloud the emptiness and redundency of your responses and with enough if these you will eventually back your opponnet to the wall....

thx for making my point.

minusthejihad
07-21-2005, 08:57 AM
once again..... typical "offense is best defense"
You have something to contribute of your own to the discussion? no? you have some insightful comment to make? no? never mind.... keep sputing empty meaningless unproductive offensive responses, the smoke screen will cloud the emptiness and redundency of your responses and with enough if these you will eventually back your opponnet to the wall....

thx for making my point.

huh? I don't know what you are talking about. But what I was saying, is that your argument would come off much stronger if you didn't always react like a hurt puppy in your retorts. Keep it cool... save some face.

Mediocrates
07-21-2005, 09:05 AM
I already answered that. You can take ANY abstract concept ever conceived by a human being and empty it of its meaning by saying that its just "words".

Not words, but laws based on ethics and morality. Otherwise all you have is sterile regulations.



So the historical connection that binds the Jewish people to the land of Israel, the original drive of the Zionist movement and the most popular reason rightists have for staying in Gaza - its just feel good words?


I think you would find the reactions of those original pionoeers to your sentiments not what you expect. Oh you don't have to be Palmach either. The idea that you have to sit around and negotiate the terms under which you unilaterally surrender is I think something they would believe is laughable.


The concept of "Freedom" from tyranny, the drive behind American independence, French revolution, Russian revolution, and perhaps the number one cause for war fatalities, its just a feel good word, right ?


If it's just a word on protest sign, it is.


anyone, inc'l tyrants and dictators can play with the word and claim to be freedom fighters, so the entire concept is an empty shell?
wow.... a really nice guideline. Sooooo pragmatic.

Yes I've read lots of Orwell too. http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/freedompark.htm

What ideas is Israel terrified of?

sharonbn
07-21-2005, 12:05 PM
Not words, but laws based on ethics and morality. Otherwise all you have is sterile regulations.
huh?? What's the connection to what I wrote? I claim that you wash off every concept that I mention as mere words that everyone can use, what's the connection with laws??? make sense please


I think you would find the reactions of those original pionoeers to your sentiments not what you expect. Oh you don't have to be Palmach either. The idea that you have to sit around and negotiate the terms under which you unilaterally surrender is I think something they would believe is laughable.
once again your articulate words fail to reach me. must be me being obtuse. What I was saying is that people left and right use abstract concept as justifications for actions. If you think I invented the concept of historical attachment and put it in the words of the settlers then you're simply **mistaken**. The settlers tout these statements ad naousia. So I guess either their search for and use of "justifications" is the same laundry of words, or maybe this is an exclusive attribute of the left.

and ALLLLL this is just i-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t to the separation. both the settlers' argument for staying in Gaza and the left argument for the withdrawal - both predate the pull out. the settlers opinion of the "unilaterally surrender" is i-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t to the topic of the discussion. it is irrelevant in all other aspects, as the terms of te pull out are decided by the elected Israeli gov't. anyone who don't like it is welcome to speak his mind on the next elections.


If it's just a word on protest sign, it is.
Freedom is a word on protest sign? how convinient for you.
"I think you would find the reactions" of the Chienese students from Tien-en-man square "not what you expect".
I think you would find the reactions of the Kurds in Iraq not what you expect.
I think you would find the reactions of the Tibetans not what you expect.

I guess you're one of those who can only appriciate something once its gone. until then, you take it for granted.

sharonbn
07-21-2005, 12:14 PM
huh? I don't know what you are talking about. But what I was saying, is that your argument would come off much stronger if you didn't always react like a hurt puppy in your retorts. Keep it cool... save some face.
oh really? you were just contributing some productive criticism on my literal expression? wow how did I miss that among the sarcastic gleeful remarks?

please, if you have something to say ON THE TOPIC, you're welcome. otherwise, save the insightful literal critique to yourself.

minusthejihad
07-21-2005, 12:20 PM
<edited by moderator>

minusthejihad
07-21-2005, 12:31 PM
<edited by moderator>

Mediocrates
07-21-2005, 12:39 PM
and ALLLLL this is just i-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t to the separation. both the settlers' argument for staying in Gaza and the left argument for the withdrawal - both predate the pull out. the settlers opinion of the "unilaterally surrender" is i-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t to the topic of the discussion. it is irrelevant in all other aspects, as the terms of te pull out are decided by the elected Israeli gov't. anyone who don't like it is welcome to speak his mind on the next elections.


Quite so, if might makes right and that's all the justification you need then fine, go knock some heads in, drag them off, beat them into submission and arrest whoever's left. I'm with ya on that one, that's what cops do. Why worry about civil rights when you can point to elections? I don't actually care. Really, if you want to brutalize a small number of people and sacrifice them for the sake of expediency - go ahead, I mean what good is power if you can't abuse it?

My only question is very simple and it is this - you've reached a watershed in little Israel. It is at a point where increasingly harsh responses are accepted as the norm over a broad range of civic issues. You're knocking down their damn homes for god's sake, what did you think their reaction would be? And if 8,000 can be kicked away why not 30,000 or 50,000 or 200,000 - do you really think you have the manpower for that? Do you? Or will something a little more drastic and harsh than this be required? What next? The poor living in poor neighborhoods, water canons on teachers? Union strikes? What's next to be outlawed? Or will you just pull the tefillin over your head and hope that no one ever complains about anything. But they will because you opened that bottle, you set the stage for large scale police force mobilized against your own civilians, you decided what Imperial Justice is.

See the thing is not so much that you think you're infallible it's that you've basically run out of public discourse and the tools to have one. You already won the battle and this expulsion will happen. Is now the time to be so arrogant about it? And after you've herded all the people out of Gaza, then what? You think the next time Sharon, or anyone else makes a statement or plan about anything that any minority affected by it will pay attention or believe you or will they just go along, because the alternative is getting your head busted?

I don't care about why they think they deserve that land, I'm not a zealot. The fact remains is that they are there and you are kicking them out and a big part of how you manage to do that is to marginalize and demonize them and get them to react in ways that allow you to 'justify' irresponsible force.

And now I'm done, it's your country, you screwed up, you fix it.

minusthejihad
07-21-2005, 12:39 PM
Stifling of dissent. Removing my opinion. I feel I'm being treated like an anti-disengager. How patterns emerge. :)

sharonbn
07-21-2005, 12:51 PM
minusthejihad,

I already told you. if you have something to say on topic, please do, otherwise I strongly urge you to stop with the provocations. If this is all a game to you, then you will be banned in the end.

and to be clear: I do not expect a response to this.

minusthejihad
07-21-2005, 12:55 PM
That's fine. And I expect fair treatment of Ophra's insulting remarks against Religious Jews and Russian Jews as well.

sharonbn
07-21-2005, 01:00 PM
If you report a post, it will be examined. I don't scour the forum for offensive posts.

and that's the end of that.

SteveK
07-21-2005, 03:06 PM
If you report a post, it will be examined. I don't scour the forum for offensive posts.

and that's the end of that.


sharonbn:

I hope that you can also put an end to your scouring of Israel for Jews, which Mediocrates has summed up as so correctly reflecting your faction:

A faction that can successfully operate by demonizing a minority into submission.

redcake
07-21-2005, 03:28 PM
If the palestinian government wants to, they can "obliterate" the terrorists, but that willingness depends on israel's willingness to give back the occupied territories and recognise palestine.

The Palestinian government ARE the terrorists.



Since the withdrawel there's something very close to peace in Northern israel, only from time to time disturbed by some incidents

If by "time to time" you really mean daily. Sure. Just because it's not reported in your World News doesn't mean it's not happening.