The Settlers Lost Us our Right to the West Bank

[nuttie]

I accuse the settlers of losing us our right to the West Bank. No less.

First, let me make it abundantly clear that I believe Israel initially had a full right to the West Bank, including settlement, because:

a. Legal reasons:
1. The West Bank was taken in 1967 in a war of defense.
2. Prior to that, it had been illegally occupied and annexed by Jordan.
3. All attempts to establish any legal border on that side of Israel have been rejected by the Arabs, notably UN resolution 181 of 1947, UN resolution 242 of 1967, the Clinton/Barak offer of 2000 and the Taba offer of 2001.

b. Moral reasons:
1.The West Bank became judenrein through ethnic cleansing, carried out between 1929 and 1949, and which should under no circumstances be rewarded.
2.Within its borders, Israel to this day implements the directives of the League of Nations mandate for Palestine in that non-Jews are equal citizens of the Jewish National Home. In this sense the true Palestinians are the Israelis, Jews and Arabs. Conversely, the dissident “Palestinian” authority is a racist entity excluding one group of Palestinians – The Jews. This too should never be rewarded.

So how have the settlers lost us this right?

First in the strategy adopted in the Hasbara war. They inundated the debate with subjective arguments of Jewish right according to the Jewish religion, which convinces nobody except those already accepting the Jewish religion. This disastrous hasbara was so powerful that it completely diverted attention from the points listed above, causing us to lose the hasbara war abroad. They should not now complain that foreigners, and even foreign friends, can’t see our point of view.

Second, they ignored for decades the crucial question of the rights of non-Jews in the West Bank, leaving it on the one hand to the pro-retreat Left and on the other hand to various would-be ethnic cleansers in our own midst. In this sense they lost also the moral war.

[wellofvow]

Strange viewpoint.

I agree that mistakes were made, and they are still being made, on the hasbara front, but disagree that this forfeits any of our rights.

[nuttie]

Strange viewpoint.

I agree that mistakes were made, and they are still being made, on the hasbara front, but disagree that this forfeits any of our rights.On the first count, Hasbara, they lost us the war rather than the right, but it comes down to the same thing.

On the second count, rights of non-Jews, they lost us the right in that they ignored the moral principles of both the State of Israel and its forerunner the Palestine Mandate.

[Quicken]

Amazing. I'm still trying to understand how Israel thinks it had a right to take the Palestinian's land at all, let alone the West Bank.

[nuttie]

Amazing. I'm still trying to understand how Israel thinks it had a right to take the Palestinian's land at all, let alone the West Bank.Get you facts rights, Quicken. The real Palestinians are the Jews and Arabs who nowadays call themselves Israeli. That the term has been usurped since the 1960s by the Jihadist dissidents does not change that plain historical fact.

[Quicken]

Get you facts rights, Quicken. The real Palestinians are the Jews and Arabs who nowadays call themselves Israeli. That the term has been usurped since the 1960s by the Jihadist dissidents does not change that plain historical fact.

Oh I see, the people who were forced out of their homes and off their land with just the clothes on their back in 1948 were just Arabs not Palestinians.

Gee, how silly of me.

[nuttie]

Oh I see, the people who were forced out of their homes and off their land with just the clothes on their back in 1948 were just Arabs not Palestinians.

Gee, how silly of me.A. They were not forced out.
B. They were not any more Palestinian than I am.
C. I don't deny their right to be in the West Bank; they deny mine.

[Quicken]

A. They were not forced out.
B. They were not any more Palestinian than I am.
C. I don't deny their right to be in the West Bank; they deny mine.

A. Oh I see, you just politely asked them to leave their land, a land they had been on for thousands of years.

B. Are you trying to deny their ancestry?

C. Perhaps because their land was stolen from them by force.

[Mediocrates]

There is no sane or credible basis or definition for 'refugee' un the UN's own rules in 1948.

And what about those 700,000 Jews expelled?

[Quicken]

There is no sane or credible basis or definition for 'refugee' un the UN's own rules in 1948.

And what about those 700,000 Jews expelled?

Ah yes, I see .... since the UN stated the above you abide by its decision but when the UN states that Israel is non compliant regarding international resolutions in the Arab-Israeli conflict you ignore it. Why?

[Mediocrates]

That's not really a cogent response. It's a snarky guess that you know what I'm thinking.

[MGB8]

The settlers didn't lose Israel anything.

Demographics did. So did some bad Israeli policy.

Israel has the legal right to Annex the WB and Gaza. The only problem with that is that they'd have to give Israeli citizenship to all the residents of the WB and Gaza, not just the Jews living in the settlements there, who are like in many ways like American living abroad who send their votes home. the Arabs admit this much when they advocate a one state solution.

However, since Israel has the right to Annex all of the land, under the laws of war, Israel has the right to Annex some of the land. This is confined by things such as UN SC R 242 (which requires that "territories" be withdrawn from) and humanistic things that state that if Israel does withdraw from some, it must be a real withdrawal - it can't just look like a withdrawal but in essence be the same as autonomy under Israeli rule - the viability argument. The viability argument has no relevance to whether, say, Israel keeps E. Jerusalem, already annexed, but it does effect things like control of borders, and a link between Gaza and the WB, ports, etc. However, the reality of terrorism must be factored in. No one wants another major war (they want to just let this minor war play out).

As for the history, in light of Quicken's vast ignorance, including the usual mixing up of soveriegnty and private land ownership...

Jews have had a presence in Canaan since biblical times. In the late 19th century, other Jews began immigrating to that land and purchasing property, the land being under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire. The Arab population swelled to, in part due to Arab immigration. After WWI, Britain took control of the area, and was, for all intents and purposes, the sovereign there. Jews continued immigrating to the area.

After WWII, the UN voted to partition soveriegnty - legal control, over Canaan - and so part became a "Jewish state" - by virtue of having a large Jewish majority. On this part most of the land was either "Crown land" - state owned, and/or lands owned by Jews. There was private Arab property on this land, too, although it should be noted that, like many nations, Turkey did not give permanent title to land - they gave long term leases (China does this now, and I believe many other nations do also) - so, the land was, in a sense, state property, but subject to a valid Ottoman lease, at least for a while.

The Arab areas where almost exclusively clear of Jews.

Canaans' population (Israel, WB, GS) was about 2 million, more or less 2:1 Arab to Jew.

Partition Israel did not require any displacement, land stealing, or dispossession.

But then we get to the reality of ethnic conflict.

The Arabs rejected the Partition - they did not want to give the areas that were majority Jewish unto Jewish soveriegnty. So they declared war. As in any war, there were refugees. Some were due to expulsion, others to flight. About 600-650K Arabs fled the areas that were Partition Israel as well as the Areas that the Jews conquered in response to the Arab attempted genocide.

We get this number by looking at the UN's number (I think it is about 720K, with knowledge that that number is, due to UN policies, likely significantly inflated - you can analyze the policies yourself) and then look at what we know about the populations of the area before the war. Its really a quibbling point.

Also notable is that at around this time, and in the years immedaitely following the war, about 800K Jews were kicked out of Arab countries - no war going on their, just violence, again, some due to expulsion, some just flight in the midst of a threat against them (but caused not by invading Jewish armies, but by their nations actions towards them.) These Jews moved mostly to Israel. They, like the Arab refugees, were deprived of much property - in a value/monetary sense much more than the Arabs refugees.

So you had a war and its aftermath. As a result of the war, hostile populations were expelled from land that became Israel, Jordan took control of the WB, Egypt of Gaza... and the refugee issues was never resolved. Israel could not absorb all the refugees that had lived in the land that Israel conquered in surviving the Arab attempted genocide - Israel would not have been majority Jewish. The Arabs, however, weren't cooperative in terms of a peace deal, etc., being clearly in violation of the UN charter in their attempted genocide and state-destruction (which Quicken doesn't care about). So the issue went unresolved.

Israel did not want to give up lands that would put it more strategically at risk, and, under the laws of war, it didn't have to.

The next major event vis-a-vis the Pal Arabs is 67... but its late and I don't have time to give Quicken another history lesson.

[Quicken]

Oh please, save it for someone who actually believes the lies.

I know ... why not try this talkboard:

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?50@53@.7747dccc/0

[Quicken]

That's not really a cogent response. It's a snarky guess that you know what I'm thinking.

Pithy actually.

[MGB8]

That would apparently be you, Quicken.

What I just recounted to you was, broad brush, historically accurate.

Please, again, do the reading that I asked you to do, and come back after you have an ounce of knowledge on the subject. Just basic stuff.

Again, your refusal to educate yourself makes you appear not like a person who is here to intelligently discuss issues, but a person who is hear to shout and scream propaganda.

Citing the leftist rag Al-Guardian doesn't improve your credibility. I gave you to non-partisan sources. Please go and read them, dispell yourself of some of these myths which you have, and then we can write like grown-ups.

Again, your refusal to educate yourself so that you have some very basic facts to base your opinions on says a lot about you. Please dispell me of this.

The facts are all well recorded. The demographic numbers are more or less there. The "laws of war" and other recorded treaties and principles all are easy to fine. I don't understand this willful blindness on your part. Or maybe I do - but then we have to ask the question - why would someone be motivated to disregard the truth, to not look at impartial sites and accept pretty darn well documented history and strong inference therefrom... to substantiate a theory that libel's Jews and Israel?

Oh please, save it for someone who actually believes the lies.

I know ... why not try this talkboard:

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?50@53.9WTVgbbAgDe.0@.7747dccc/0

[nuttie]

Please, people,

I know that my initial post on this thread can be attacked from both right and left, but it is the right that matters in this context.

Please don't let Quicken restate the issue from the Left side.

I would very much appreciate opinions from the right to my initial point.

[Mediocrates]

First in the strategy adopted in the Hasbara war. They inundated the debate with subjective arguments of Jewish right according to the Jewish religion, which convinces nobody except those already accepting the Jewish religion.

No, because more generally the entire argument of 'we were here first!" or 'we were here in what we assert are sufficiently large numbers before you were!' are all retarded nonsense. It doesn't matter what you think Torah says about residency requirements any more than pulling some Ottoman census out of your sphincter. Both are attempts at revisionism that ignore the fact that Israel is a country now and no amount of rhetorical uninvention will change that. The Palestinians have been successful not because of history but because they ignore it. They have a one-word answer for everything: "occupation". Why are they unemployed? Occupation. Why are they murderous insects? Occupation. Why do they kill each other? Occupation. Why are the world's first fully functioning legitimate terrorist state? Occupation. The Settlers didn't lose anyone anything because frankly, no one cares what their reason are. The problem for the Palestinians is not why they are there, it's that they exist at all.



Second, they ignored for decades the crucial question of the rights of non-Jews in the West Bank, leaving it on the one hand to the pro-retreat Left and on the other hand to various would-be ethnic cleansers in our own midst. In this sense they lost also the moral war.

No, they attempted to carve out whatever space they could and be left alone. But since the only activity the Palestinians seem able to muster is terrorism, protecting the Settlers from that is an overarching activity. For example, Kiryat Arba is miles away from Hevron plunked down in the middle of brown dusty nowhere. The Palestinians from Hevron to have leave their homes, get in a car, drive a half hour, park, get out and find a position from which to shoot at Jews they have never interacted with in any way. Proptecting them from that kind of organized paramilitary action takes work an money and effort and time.

[KSO]

No, because more generally the entire argument of 'we were here first!" or 'we were here in what we assert are sufficiently large numbers before you were!' are all retarded nonsense. It doesn't matter what you think Torah says about residency requirements any more than pulling some Ottoman census out of your sphincter. Both are attempts at revisionism that ignore the fact that Israel is a country now and no amount of rhetorical uninvention will change that. The Palestinians have been successful not because of history but because they ignore it. They have a one-word answer for everything: "occupation". Why are they unemployed? Occupation. Why are they murderous insects? Occupation. Why do they kill each other? Occupation. Why are the world's first fully functioning legitimate terrorist state? Occupation. The Settlers didn't lose anyone anything because frankly, no one cares what their reason are. The problem for the Palestinians is not why they are there, it's that they exist at all.
<edited by moderator>
You forgot the ending of your nonsense, so I filled it up

[MGB8]

There's a low blow.

Medio's point, for those in need of reading comprehension lessons, is that the problem with the settlers TO THE PAL ARABS is that the SETTLERS exist at all.

In that he is correct.

I think, however, that he is ignoring broader principles of international law and Western political thought that make a situation where you have a land where Israel is in charge, but which is not part of Israel (in other words, really, occupied, although legalistically the land isn't necessarily occupied because it was taken from Jordan, who was not a legitimate owner, and the Pal Arabs did not accept the partition, in effect rejecting the UN's grant of sovereignty over the land... but, otoh, the UN did not recognize Jordan's rule over the area not because of Israeli claims to it, but because the claims of the residents of the land), that Israel cannot move its own population there (but can they move on their own? to some extent it doesn't matter, as Israel did induce) and the fact that the Israeli claim to the land, including the settlers, who claim the land for Israel, while legitimate, cannot trump all the claims of everyone else living there. That doesn't mean that the settlers claims mean nothing, or Israel's.

As I wrote before, Israel does have the right to annex the land, which would encompass the residents claims, Israeli and Pal Arab, because everyone would become a citizen and get the vote. Its just that Israel can't do that. Having the WB and Gaza be occupied territories in perpetuity just isn't really an option - there are real political considerations.

[Mediocrates]

Let's face facts. If there were 275 Jews in Gaza, people would call it an invasion. And if there were 5000 troops there to protect them from being murdered by 1.1 million Palestinians they'd call that an occupation. It's the political gibberish.

So what you're arguing is not so much the point of the settler movement so much as the somewhat disorganized tactics of its growth. Post 67 idealistic people moved deep into Samaria and Judea and 'deep' into Gaza to coast in the belief that other's would follow and fill in the gaps. And if they had a more pragmatic approach and simply moved to places right next to the Green line and slowly moved out from there then there would be no issue and no expulsion and no question. Arik could hold whatever line there was, kiss the rest of Yesha goodbye. You wouldn't need extraordinary means to protect them any more than Israel has extraordinary means to protect herself from rockets coming from Gaza right not. Or, if you prefer if the Settlers had been right and instead of 8500 Gazans there were 850,000 Gazans then we wouldn't have this discussion either because as a matter of practical reality not even the UN could say with a straight face that they should uproot that many Jews. Overall the total Jewish population in Yesha is about 9%. The Palestinians could never live with 9% of their population being Jewish so they cut their own throats by going to war and practically demanding occupation as an operational necessity to their war. But I suspect that if the ratio was 25% then even Koffi Annan would tell them to shut up and get on with making a country and no one's going to glorify their whiny useless bronze age status any longer.

[SteveK]

I accuse the settlers of losing us our right to the West Bank. No less.

....

First in the strategy adopted in the Hasbara war. They inundated the debate with subjective arguments of Jewish right according to the Jewish religion, which convinces nobody except those already accepting the Jewish religion. This disastrous hasbara was so powerful that it completely diverted attention from the points listed above, causing us to lose the hasbara war abroad. They should not now complain that foreigners, and even foreign friends, can’t see our point of view.



Hi nuttie,

If you will read the 1947 UN Proceedings on "The Palestine Question", you will see a very long testimony by David Ben-Gurion, himself, about our Biblical right to Erez Yisrael.

Also, if you will stop for a moment to think, these few thousand "settlers" didn't "push" our God given right to the Land of Israel. 35+ centuries of unbroken tradition passed through the generations made this point loud and clear to the world. Even the diaspora Jews tell the world about God taking us out of Egypt and bringing us into our own Land.

Also, we get into the issue called faith in the Living God of Israel. And, the faith expressed by these "settlers" was quite in line with the 20 centuries of faith and prayer expressed by the exiled Jews for return to their
God given Homeland.

Their "religion" is about sanctification of The Living God of Israel, not from the diaspora, but from the Jewish Homeland,--- here, nuttie, in Israel.
That's what we Jews are supposed to be doing is sanctifying the Living God of Israel here in Israel, and not desecrating His Name by expelling Jews from their God given Land, among other happenings,- like telling the world how embarrassed you are to even mention the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Why don't you change the name of Israel to something else. Israel is also the name of Jacob. You are part of the Children of Israel.

How can we make a spin on that so you can show your face abroad?

[sharonbn]

The problem for the Palestinians is not why they are there, it's that they exist at all.
I would like a clarification: Do you suggest Israel should kill all Palestinians?if not, what then, is Israel to do with the 3.5 million people living inside its borders that hove no citizenship and zero civil rights.

Yes, I know they commit terror attacks. It sometimes seems to me like, similar to the "occupation" chant by Pals, "terror" is the ubiquitous phrase-for-all-occasions used by some people.

I would like to know how you, Medio, propose Israel should deal with these 3.5 million people. kill them? deport them? leave the situation as it is? close our eyes? what??

[sharonbn]

If you will read the 1947 UN Proceedings on "The Palestine Question", you will see a very long testimony by David Ben-Gurion, himself, about our Biblical right to Erez Yisrael.
SteveK,
UN Proceedings, as well as Zionist literature show one reason for the establishement of the modern state of Israel - to save the Jewish people from persecutions, a second holocaust and possible extinction.

The Zionist movement was founded for this sole purpose. Zionists did not claim right over the land of Israel be virtue of "biblical" rights. Zionists advocated that the land of Israel is the best place at the time (second half of 19th cent) for the establishment of national home for the Jews for the sake of safe haven from persecutions. After the Holocaust, the rest of the world saw our point.

There were other places considered for national Jewish home. They failed because Zionist leadership estimated (quite rightly) they would not attract the Jews to immigrate to them.

The whole "Biblical right to Erez Yisrael" was as adoption by the national religious movement. The Zionists were initially secular and that is why law of Torah is not the basis of the lawbook of Israel.

[sharonbn]

One last thing:

What saved the European Jewry from total extinction was not the ultra orthodox leadership and their communities. It was not the Rabbis, not the Hassidic movement. No, it was secular Jews who established first settlements in Israel, giving us a foot hold and claim to the land.

We can and sould thank the enlightement movement, secular movement, and Zionism, the Jewsh national movement for saving the Jewish people from its worst danger in 2,000 years.

When I say we I mean ALL Jews, religious or not.

[Mediocrates]

I would like a clarification: Do you suggest Israel should kill all Palestinians?
No

if not, what then, is Israel to do with the 3.5 million people living inside its borders that hove no citizenship and zero civil rights.

Zero? Really? Well in either case cut 'em all lose.

Yes, I know they commit terror attacks. It sometimes seems to me like, similar to the "occupation" chant by Pals, "terror" is the ubiquitous phrase-for-all-occasions used by some people.


Yeah, who cares. Give them a pat on the head and a flag. Just another state in name only. Screw it.


I would like to know how you, Medio, propose Israel should deal with these 3.5 million people. kill them? deport them? leave the situation as it is? close our eyes? what??

See above, I don't care.

[Mediocrates]

One last thing:

What saved the European Jewry from total extinction was not the ultra orthodox leadership and their communities. It was not the Rabbis, not the Hassidic movement. No, it was secular Jews who established first settlements in Israel, giving us a foot hold and claim to the land.

We can and sould thank the enlightement movement, secular movement, and Zionism, the Jewsh national movement for saving the Jewish people from its worst danger in 2,000 years.

When I say we I mean ALL Jews, religious or not.

Of course one has to at least ask the question, who then is Jewish? Sure you saved 'the Jews' at the expense perhaps of Judaism itself. But that's for another day.

[sharonbn]

Of course one has to at least ask the question, who then is Jewish? Sure you saved 'the Jews' at the expense perhaps of Judaism itself. But that's for another day.
For someone who offers no answers you sure do ask a lot of questions...

[Mediocrates]

See the point is this. No one has the right to anything. National histories are Darwinian struggles. I say kick the Palestinians to whatever dark hole they think is their due. I've never said anything different and you know that.

[sharonbn]

See the point is this. No one has the right to anything. National histories are Darwinian struggles. I say kick the Palestinians to whatever dark hole they think is their due. I've never said anything different and you know that.
This is not an answer.
Where is this dark hole we're supposed to kick the Pals? I believe the Pals think their "due" is Israel. So? Jordan? Egypt?

You see, us Israelis, we do listen to sound advice from our American friends, as long as the advice is indeed sound and a tiny bit more specific then "dark hole"

Believe it or not, eventually someone has to actually F-I-N-D that dark hole, houl the Pals into it and close the lid. We Israels, eventually have to come up with a practicle solution. Dark hole does not cut it.

So, throwing meanigless useless impractical unrealistic phrases like "dark hole" really really doesn't give me a pink clue as to the solution you're suggesting.

You can stick with "Screw it", "cut 'em all lose" and "I don't care" for the time being, while the rest of us come up with practicle solutions, like the pull out, Geneva accord, there are a few floating about...

[Mediocrates]

This is not an answer.
Where is this dark hole we're supposed to kick the Pals? I believe the Pals think their "due" is Israel. So? Jordan? Egypt?

You see, us Israelis, we do listen to sound advice from our American friends, as long as the advice is indeed sound and a tiny bit more specific then "dark hole"

Believe it or not, eventually someone has to actually F-I-N-D that dark hole, houl the Pals into it and close the lid. We Israels, eventually have to come up with a practicle solution. Dark hole does not cut it.

So, throwing meanigless useless impractical unrealistic phrases like "dark hole" really really doesn't give me a pink clue as to the solution you're suggesting.

You can stick with "Screw it", "cut 'em all lose" and "I don't care" for the time being, while the rest of us come up with practicle solutions, like the pull out, Geneva accord, there are a few floating about...


Leave them where they are then.

[sharonbn]

I think we tried that for the past 38 years.
I can't tell, but it seems to me the Pals don't like the way things are.
I would not rate the last 38 years as a success, and certanly not as a long term solution.

[windowlicker]

i completely agree that we should never publicly justify our presence here by explaining that God gave us this land. Of course, he did and we all know it (and it will be this way forever) but to our fellow gentiles, we must offer the other, more visible truth: the fact that we have been defending ourselves this whole time. coming to Israel, the UN partition plan, the wars, intifadas, etc. it all shows the same pattern: they attacked, we conquered.

anyways,

I think we tried that for the past 38 years.
I can't tell, but it seems to me the Pals don't like the way things are.
I would not rate the last 38 years as a success, and certanly not as a long term solution.

i think its pretty clear that sharon's already thought up of his own solution, and has even presented it to abbas in their meetings. of course, abbas has no choice but to suck it up, thankfully. i believe that we are coming close to a major change in the region. in fact, its begun already, right under our noses.

let me explain:
sharon may have denied it, but the wall is in fact the border that will seperate israel from the new and upcoming palestinian state. there will still be a minimal amount of jewish settlements inside with our soldiers gaurding them (or maybe none at all), but the bottom line is that it *will* be palestine, and very soon.

major yishuvim and cities like ariel (which sharon has already said that he will never dismantle, thank God) and maaleh adumim will be within our border, but i imagine that others like bet el might have to go, sadly. as for the gaza pullout its obvious that sharon wants and knows that its better off in their hands, so that theyll have a continuous strip. its sad, but its the right sacrifice so that all of this will be over with as soon as possible. the important thing is, we will still have a fair portion of our beautiful west bank.

im saddened by the behaviour of the settlers in gaza. i mean, i understand and respect their right to protest peacefully. but watching them act out, scream, and curse so violently against our own holy soldiers was revolting. some of them, mamash, behaved like arabs. no, this isnt how jews behave. reminds me of the recent stabbings at jerusalem's pride parade. i mean, if youre jewish and religious, youd best act that way and not like some barbarian or animal. learn CULTURE. what a chilul hashem!

allow me to simplfy the situation with gaza: i understand its going to be a real pain, that graves will be moved, that people will cry. i see it like a family man who works in an office. he makes his money and supports his family like a good citizen. one day, he is told to leave. now, being fired is never easy. but at this point he has 2 choices: to leave peacfully like a man or to make a mess and cause his boss to call security which will result in violence and discomfort. yalla, the decision was made. enough with the fighting. get out and come inside wheres its much much safer anyways. i would never raise my children there.

as for this new reality which sharon, the genius, has made: i picture a much safer age for all of us. however, it still wont be *completely* safe. there will still be kasams and occasional terror, but it will occur nowhere nearly as often. imagine a long, tall wall surrounding the arabs. imagine our soldiers and watchmen patrolling the premises with the high tech equipment we already have. imagine special technology to intercept kasams (which our companies are already developing), and most importantly: imagine much more international legitimacy every time we decide to invade and conquer one of their cities because of terror threats, since it will no longer be occupied land, but part of an independant state.

i put my faith with sharon, the best and most dedicated PM we have seen in a long time. i just love the man!!!

on a darker note: we should face the reality that things will never be 100% peacful here. the palestinian cancer will always want us in the ocean. this is our reality. maybe in 50 years, God willing, this place can become friendlier.

[Mediocrates]

I think we tried that for the past 38 years.
I can't tell, but it seems to me the Pals don't like the way things are.
I would not rate the last 38 years as a success, and certanly not as a long term solution.


Ok then don't do that, do something else.

[Mediocrates]

You don't want Jews to live there. You don't want to ignore the Palestinians either. Seems you're out of options. Oh well. Maybe Mobeen is right and you should just convert.

[sharonbn]

OK, so finally we see that you really don't have a solution. not a big surprise as almost all your posts are confined to responses to solutions proposed by others.

There is one option left: Withdraw and give the land to the Pals. This is what Sharon is doing in GS. WB will follow.

Surprizingly, this is very similar to the solution proposed by the left more then a decade ago.

[MGB8]

Wrong.

There are huge differences. The left would have given up everything under just a little bit of pressure.

The left would not have hit back when hit under the guise of "not inflaming them" or some other garbage.

The left believes that you can skip around the bloodshed and that the Arabs will automatically move their red lines to something reasonable. They won't - if they get the WB and Gaza too easily, they will quickly ask for more. Even after they get Gaza, they will keep attacking. The right will respond. The right is prepared, if necessary, to expell every one of them - but only if necessary. The left was never willing to put Israel ahead of the Pal Arabs. That's the idiocy of the left.

If the left was doing disengagement, the terrorist groups wouldn't fear it so much. But Sharon is, and they know that means that the pressure on them will not let up.

Mitza campaigned on the "negotiate as if there was no terror, fight terror as if there were no negotiations." But that was just a slogan. Mitzna would not have jeapordized negotiations with fighting terror. He would not be prepared, like Sharon is, to invade Gaza to secure the pull-out. He would not be so tough in securing the big settlement blocks. He wouldn't really even be willing to strike back hard, if the time comes. No one worries about those things with Sharon. And, more than that, the Pal Arabs KNOW that is what Sharon is about. Didn't you notice that the targetted killings had their effect?

The problem with the left is, even when they talk tough, its all carrot, no stick. Sharon is using both. You have to.

Then there is the fact that it doesn't pain the left at all to kick out the settlers, etc. Its callous... those "dirty settlers" - "extremists." Despite the talk about Sharon, you know that this process is very painful for him. But he is a bulldozer, and has set his course.

[Luke90]

i completely agree that we should never publicly justify our presence here by explaining that God gave us this land. Of course, he did and we all know it (and it will be this way forever)
This is a public forum.

[sharonbn]

Wrong.

There are huge differences. The left would have given up everything under just a little bit of pressure.
and the right is giving up everything uner a lot of pressure, after 4 years of intifada. yeah, you're right, a huge difference.
I'll tall you what's the real huge difference: the left would not establish the settlements in GS to begin with, so it would spear us the national trauma of having to remove them. THAT'S the real difference. Like they say, a clever person is someone who can get out of a tight spot that a wise poerson would never get into.

The left would not have hit back when hit under the guise of "not inflaming them" or some other garbage.
Again, you're absolutely right. The left saw the futility of keeping the lands back in 1993. The left understood that Pal terror, accompanied by the demographic problem is more than Israel can handle. The left saw all that while the right was still in "greater Israel" never never land.
The left only needed one intefada to see what only option we have to save Israel. The right needed a second intifada, a bang on the head to wake up from the dream and come to same conclusions as the left.

[Mediocrates]

OK, so finally we see that you really don't have a solution. not a big surprise as almost all your posts are confined to responses to solutions proposed by others.

Sure I do, but I guess you won't accept it unless I prostrate myself on the ground begging your forgiveness. I swear the easiest way to get into an argument with you <edited by moderator> sabras is to agree with you. You truly deserve the disaster you've gotten yourself into.

[Mediocrates]

I'm with ya, I swear to god I am. I'm with our long lost poster Alfred who came liking us and left in shame and disgust. I am 100% behind surrender: Gaza, Golan, All of the West Bank, All of Jerusalem. 1949 borders or die trying. 100% cessation of all American aid to Israel including UN support. Unlmited right of return. Go for it. I am absolutely in that camp.

[MGB8]

That is, of course, laughable. You actually believe that the terror will stop after we leave, don't you? Or you believe that it makes no difference if we left after hitting back first, as opposed to hitting back for the first time afterwords?

Do you believe, for one second, that this war is anywhere near ending? This is a tactical line shift. Nothing more. But you don't concern yourself with the fact that this is a war. They are fighting a war, and you pretend that they aren't, and its just a response to "occupation."

Seriously, the left is so deluded. They think everyone is just a reasonable person and we can all get along. Reasonable people don't produce suicide bombers. Reasonable people don't keep calling for genocide, as hamas, IJ, and half of Fatah still do. Are you really that dumb?

Remember, we tried Oslo. It was a Trojan Horse - a HUGE mistake... and made by the left. It was a mistake not because of the idea of giving Pal Arabs something, but of inviting in terrorists pretending that they were reasonable people.

You would give up everything and hope that they stop attacking, and wouldn't have the toughness to stop the attacks and deter them. You do realize that support for armed struggle goes down among the Pal Arabs only after they have been hit, don't you?

We are not leaving Gaza or parts of the WB because its so terrible that Israel is in charge. It was better for the Pal Arabs, frankly, then any Arab rule that they have had. People are terrified of being under the PA, that's why Arab towns on the Israeli side of the Green line don't want the border to shift...

Nor is the "occupation" the source of the problem. Daily life was better for Arabs pre-first intifadah in the WB and GS than it was for most other Arabs. THis isn't about "occupation." It is part of the war to destroy Israel based on Jihadi undercurrents.

We are getting out strictly as a tactical response to a demographic and political problem. It is a decision of last resort, abandoning legitimate claims and useful defensive positions (though, in the WB, that will take years... Gaza is a test case, and we know that chances are that it will fail and require re-invasion.) Then we go back to fighting the war.

That's the other thing - the right is not giving up everything. They are keeping Jerusalem and the large settlement blocks. The left would not have.

Terror, btw, is not the problem. Israel can handle terror. And don't think for one second that terror will go away even if we gave them all of the territories and half of Jerusalem. Its the political issues of demographics, and some cost savings and international PR to set up future responses - nothing more.


and the right is giving up everything uner a lot of pressure, after 4 years of intifada. yeah, you're right, a huge difference.
I'll tall you what's the real huge difference: the left would not establish the settlements in GS to begin with, so it would spear us the national trauma of having to remove them. THAT'S the real difference. Like they say, a clever person is someone who can get out of a tight spot that a wise poerson would never get into.


Again, you're absolutely right. The left saw the futility of keeping the lands back in 1993. The left understood that Pal terror, accompanied by the demographic problem is more than Israel can handle. The left saw all that while the right was still in "greater Israel" never never land.
The left only needed one intefada to see what only option we have to save Israel. The right needed a second intifada, a bang on the head to wake up from the dream and come to same conclusions as the left.

[sharonbn]

Sure I do, but I guess you won't accept it unless I prostrate myself on the ground begging your forgiveness. I swear the easiest way to get into an argument with you <edited by moderator> sabras is to agree with you. You truly deserve the disaster you've gotten yourself into.

and they say the leftists crack under pressure... :rolleyes:

I asked what's your proposal for a solution to the Israeli Arab conflict.
Your only answer thus far was "throw them in some dark hole"
I didn't say I do not agree with this solution, I said this is not a solution at all.

Then, all of the sudden you make these accusations that us sabras don't accept anything we don't agree to. For me to disagree on your solution, I would have to read it first.

But don't bother, Don't waste your time. I now understand that when asked directly, you come up with no answer, like the rest of the rightists. So let us leftists make some real plans and real actions, while you stand in the sidelines and ask questions and make remarks. Just so we understrand the role each one is playing here.

[Mediocrates]

I understand perfectly. I agree with 95% of what you say but I don't drink your kool aid so you natter and pick.

[minusthejihad]

So let us leftists make some real plans and real actions,

LOL! Stop please. My gut is hurting. What actions? You will be out there dragging Jews from their homes?

[Ophra]

I'm with ya, I swear to god I am. I'm with our long lost poster Alfred who came liking us and left in shame and disgust. I am 100% behind surrender: Gaza, Golan, All of the West Bank, All of Jerusalem. 1949 borders or die trying. 100% cessation of all American aid to Israel including UN support. Unlmited right of return. Go for it. I am absolutely in that camp.

Medio..... the above is all nonesense ... get a grip :eek:

[Ophra]

LOL! Stop please. My gut is hurting. What actions? You will be out there dragging Jews from their homes?

.... and you will be sitting safely where ??? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Ophra]

The problem with the left is, even when they talk tough, its all carrot, no stick. Sharon is using both. You have to.

This I agree with . Nobody but Sharon could have done this .... well maybe Begin :)

[minusthejihad]

.... and you will be sitting safely where ??? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

First of all, I wasn't addressing you, but since you are obsessed with me, try to pick an argument and then go crying to your beloved SharonBN, I'll ask...

What does this snarky comment have to do with anything?

[windowlicker]

you come up with no answer, like the rest of the rightists. So let us leftists make some real plans and real actions, while you stand in the sidelines and ask questions and make remarks. Just so we understrand the role each one is playing here.

this is a mistake, because up until now, most political decisions made over deployments were made by the right.

[sharonbn]

That is, of course, laughable. You actually believe that the terror will stop after we leave, don't you? Or you believe that it makes no difference if we left after hitting back first, as opposed to hitting back for the first time afterwords?
First of all, this has no relevance to the point I was making that the right is implementing left proposals and plans.
Second, what comes after the pull out - no one knows. For example, after pulling out from Lebanon, the border seems to be relatively quiet with sporadic provocations by Hisbuallah.
Third, it is my ignorant assessment that it will be easier to defend Israel from terror if IDF doesn't have the task to defend tiny outposts positioned in the heart of darkness, but rather defending large population centers behind well defined borders with proper measures such as fences, etc.

Do you believe, for one second, that this war is anywhere near ending? This is a tactical line shift. Nothing more. But you don't concern yourself with the fact that this is a war. They are fighting a war, and you pretend that they aren't, and its just a response to "occupation."
Once again, looking at Lebanon, the Lebanese were indeed fighting Israeli occupation. Once that was removed, they turned their eyes to the other occupier of their country. I believe that there will always be extremists and terror cells, at least for a long time. I believe PA is better suited to fight these cells then IDF.

Seriously, the left is so deluded. They think everyone is just a reasonable person and we can all get along. Reasonable people don't produce suicide bombers. Reasonable people don't keep calling for genocide, as hamas, IJ, and half of Fatah still do. Are you really that dumb?
I don't think the left is deluded. I don't think the left has the better solution, I think the left has the only solution. The right "solution" was: keep things as they are. Rule over the Pals, fight terrorism. live like this forever. The only other solution I heard was the idea of the transfer, and that solution was not adopted, or tried, by the right main party, the Likud. I believe its because transfer of millions of people is not possible and is beyond the capability of IDF. hell, evacuation of few thousands proves to be extremely hard.

So the left may or may not be right with its solution. It does not matter because I don't see any other solution proposed and tried by the right. The right has no solution.

Remember, we tried Oslo. It was a Trojan Horse - a HUGE mistake... and made by the left. It was a mistake not because of the idea of giving Pal Arabs something, but of inviting in terrorists pretending that they were reasonable people.
Oslo was not a failure in my eyes. Oslo was not implemented fully, but it some of it was implemented. Anyway, Oslo served as a milestone on the road for peace. It helped change public views in the Israeli and Pal public. It was a breakthrough for its time. Camp David was the real missed chance imo. Arafat really blew this one. Maybe Abbas can prove better, time will tell.

You would give up everything and hope that they stop attacking, and wouldn't have the toughness to stop the attacks and deter them. You do realize that support for armed struggle goes down among the Pal Arabs only after they have been hit, don't you?
I already answered that. I would "give up" land to make Israeli defense easier. I would also give up land because I don't want the Pals to keep sitting on Israeli-controlled land, ticking the demographic bomb.

We are not leaving Gaza or parts of the WB because its so terrible that Israel is in charge. It was better for the Pal Arabs, frankly, then any Arab rule that they have had. People are terrified of being under the PA, that's why Arab towns on the Israeli side of the Green line don't want the border to shift...
I think Israel should demand that as part of the peace agreement with PA, Um El Fahem, Baqa El Garbia and other large Israeli Arab towns will be annexed by Palestine, in exchange for Maale Edomim, Gush Etzion, etc. We should draw the borders so that as much separation is done between the two people.

Nor is the "occupation" the source of the problem. Daily life was better for Arabs pre-first intifadah in the WB and GS than it was for most other Arabs. THis isn't about "occupation." It is part of the war to destroy Israel based on Jihadi undercurrents.
I don't know where you get such indepth knowledge about the living standards of Pals living under Israeli control. Yes before the intifada, they had work and earned money. So were he Americans under British rule, so were the Moroccans under French rule, etc. They were lacking one important thing: freedom. They had no citizenship or civil rights. It seems that throughout history, people were willing to pay a deer price in the short term in order to achieve this goal, freedom, in the long term.

We are getting out strictly as a tactical response to a demographic and political problem. It is a decision of last resort, abandoning legitimate claims and useful defensive positions (though, in the WB, that will take years... Gaza is a test case, and we know that chances are that it will fail and require re-invasion.) Then we go back to fighting the war.
There was nothing that Israel did not know about GS 25 years ago. We knew about the demographic problem, we knew about terror attacks, we knew about the futility of trying to control the land. The sign was on the wall back when we negotiated peace with Egypt. We should have insisted that they take control over the region. Instead, Israel simply chose to close its eyes to all the red signals and pretend we can control the land. we forced ourselves into "last resort".

[sharonbn]

this is a mistake, because up until now, most political decisions made over deployments were made by the right.
Yes,and the reason for that is that when the left makes plans, the right topples the gov't, with populastic arguments because of political rivalry. Then, when the right comes into power, it suddenly sees "the light", it sees there is no choice between two solutions - its a one solution scenario, and then it implements left plans, of course backed up by the left in the opposition.

There, I just summed up Israeli political history for the last 12 years.

[sharonbn]

This I agree with . Nobody but Sharon could have done this .... well maybe Begin :)
Rabin could have done it. Better and sooner than anyone else I might add.

[windowlicker]

Yes,and the reason for that is that when the left makes plans, the right topples the gov't, with populastic arguments because of political rivalry. Then, when the right comes into power, it suddenly sees "the light", it sees there is no choice between two solutions - its a one solution scenario, and then it implements left plans, of course backed up by the left in the opposition.

thats a matter of opinion, my friend.

look, overall, i think its BS to say that the right dont do anything and they are only a hinderance. accept that there are others in israel with different opniions, whether born there or not.

besides, until now there havent been many solutions that lasted anyways. do yourself a favor, buddy, dont kid yourself by thinking that you or even the most new age, israeli leftwinger tzabar will ever come up with a decent method to halt the arabs' anti-zionst/jew agenda. there is so much hatred that no one could ever rectify. itll never happen.

dont put yourself on that pedestal. it crumbles everytime.

[minusthejihad]

dont put yourself on that pedestal. it crumbles everytime.

Thank you. My point exactly. Talk about Arrogance. We on the left are soo smart, so proactive, soooo hot. You on the right are not! Nah nah nah nah nah nah!

[sharonbn]

I understand perfectly. I agree with 95% of what you say but I don't drink your kool aid so you natter and pick.

If that's the case, why don't you say so in the beginning?

Why do you make ridiculous proposals about "let them loose",
"throwing them into dark hole", "let them stay" only to say in the end you agree with what I have said all along....? and then yuo throw the towel only because I push for concrete practicle solution instead of empty slogans.

I don't understans this discussion tactics. must be my thickheadedness.

[sharonbn]

thats a matter of opinion, my friend.
Fine, so its a difference of opinions. I stated my opinion and my interpratation of history. I accept that other people see it differently.

look, overall, i think its BS to say that the right dont do anything and they are only a hinderance. accept that there are others in israel with different opniions, whether born there or not.
I don't think the right did not do anything. The right did plenty. They pushed the settlement movement farther then the left did. I only say they did not present a long term solution to the conflict. not to the public and not to themselves. The right and its actions are the reasons why Israel is forced to make "last resort" decisions time after time.

besides, until now there havent been many solutions that lasted anyways. do yourself a favor, buddy, dont kid yourself by thinking that you or even the most new age, israeli leftwinger tzabar will ever come up with a decent method to halt the arabs' anti-zionst/jew agenda. there is so much hatred that no one could ever rectify. itll never happen.
We already agreed its a matter of opinion. The fact remains that the left stuck with its proposal for at least 12 years if not more. It is the right who seemed to change its plans everytime it gets into the pedestal. Imho, it says something.

[MGB8]

Sadley, the American Revolution was not about "freedom" - it was about the Mercantile system and taxes ... "no Taxation without Representation."

And while there has been RELATIVE quiet from Lebanon, with sporadic attacks, Hezbollah has been busy building up its resources WITHING the territories, and building up its weapons for another Northern Onslaught - it is a matter of time, nothing more.

The result of Oslo was 1,000 dead Jews and 4,000 dead Arabs. Nothing more.

You could just as easily say that Israel's failures was, after 67, not closing of the border between Jordan and the WB, not encouraging the emmigration of enough Arabs, and and/or not setting firm borders when they had the opportunity - instead, chosing no course of action at all.

Don't forget that before the treaty with Jordan (which is still mostly just paper) and the removal of Saddam, the settlements were strategic depth mechanisms designed to stop the advance of an army from the East. Recent technology has lessened the need, somewhat, but that is recent, and some need is still there. To argue that it was a mistake to put them there is very hindsighted thinking - at the time, it was not a mistake. The risk of invasion from the East was much greater - Imagine if we had given up the WB in 67 to "Palestinians", and Jordan and Iraq had joined in the invasion in 73. No, history didn't turn out that way - but there was no way to tell at the time.

You are focusing on "the solution." Well, here's the thing - the "solution" won't solve anything. That is the difference. The right is doing tactical positioning, that is all. They don't pretend to have a solution that will bring peace - it takes two to tango. The left would impose the "solution" without regard to tactical positioning, and, WHEN that failed to bring peace, and it would fail, just as Olso did when Arafat disregarded every obligation, put massive insightment everywhere, and massively armed the terrorists preparing for this current phase, WHEN this failed to bring peace, Israel would be S.O.L.

That's the failure of the left. Belief in nice and tidy "solutions." Things get wrapped up. Human nature doesn't exist. The Arabs are just reasonable people looking for self-determination (just ignore when they say otherwise.)

This is a war. It is not going to end any time soon. The only time it will end is when the Arabs have bled enough, that's it. Not when they get x or y. Just when they realize that they can't win. That's the difference between the right and the left. The right takes actions to show that the Arabs "weapon of the womb" can't win. Nothing more. No pretense that peace will magically come down.

Tactics in a very long war that Israel does not have a free hand to win.

[Ophra]

Rabin could have done it. Better and sooner than anyone else I might add.

That's a given ..... if he had been given the chance :(

[sharonbn]

Sadley, the American Revolution was not about "freedom" - it was about the Mercantile system and taxes ... "no Taxation without Representation."
That was the trigger for the unrest in the colonies. the revolution came as a result for people wish for freedom. anyway, it doesn’t change my point that people are willing to sacrifice in the short term for a long term goal. To say that the Pals were better off before the intifada because they had work and food and relative quiet is just silly. the pals had no future. Israel was not going to give them citizenship ever, Israel was not going to withdraw and give them self rule ever. I guess Israel just thought the pals should be content to remain cheap labor force for Israel forever. wow, big surprise that the pals didn't think its enough.

And while there has been RELATIVE quiet from Lebanon, with sporadic attacks, Hezbollah has been busy building up its resources WITHING the territories, and building up its weapons for another Northern Onslaught - it is a matter of time, nothing more.
Time and time again you engage in foreseeing the future. we agreed its a matter of opinions, didn't we. I happen to think that Hizbuallah will come to realize that its continued provocations gains no support from the common people. It is already a fact that most Lebanese seem think their biggest problem now is Syria, not Israel. I think we will not see an "Onslaught" from Lebanon ever again.

The result of Oslo was 1,000 dead Jews and 4,000 dead Arabs. Nothing more.
Matter of opinion, bla bla bla. Can't you agree that people interpret history differently than you?

You could just as easily say that Israel's failures was, after 67, not closing of the border between Jordan and the WB, not encouraging the immigration of enough Arabs, and and/or not setting firm borders when they had the opportunity - instead, chosing no course of action at all.
Israel's mistake in 67 was indeed that it chose no course of action. I think Israel should have withdraw from all the land right then. I don't see how "encouraging" the immigration would have solve anything. I mean, many Pals don't sit *inside* Israeli borders, it does not stop them from attacking Israel, does it? Suppose Israel would get all Pals on trucks and drive and dump them on Jordan the very next day after 67 war. You honestly think we would not face 38 years of terror? and you think I'm delusional....

Don't forget that before the treaty with Jordan (which is still mostly just paper) and the removal of Saddam, the settlements were strategic depth mechanisms designed to stop the advance of an army from the East.
You are talking about the Alon program. and that includes only settlements on the Jordan valley, not places like Alfei Menashe and Beit Ell. The Alon program was a mistake. If Jordan would have decided to participate in the Yom Kippur war, the settlements were not the factor which would stop the advance of the army.

and the Lebanon affair proved that the tactics of creating "strategic depth" is just bad tactics. to invade another country for the sake of bringing security to your own country brings nothing more then humiliating withdrawal after so and so years. Israel was right to invade Lebanon in 1982 because of Fatah terror attacks from Lebanon. but Israel had no business staying in Lebanon after Fatah was expelled to Tunis.

I think America is learning the same lesson in Iraq these days.

You are focusing on "the solution." Well, here's the thing - the "solution" won't solve anything. That is the difference. The right is doing tactical positioning, that is all. They don't pretend to have a solution that will bring peace - it takes two to tango. The left would impose the "solution" without regard to tactical positioning, and, WHEN that failed to bring peace, and it would fail, just as Oslo did when Arafat disregarded every obligation, put massive insightment everywhere, and massively armed the terrorists preparing for this current phase, WHEN this failed to bring peace, Israel would be S.O.L.
Ok so we finally agree that the right has no long term solution. that's progress.
So the argument now is whether the left's solution, the only solution on the table, will indeed bring long term peace, or we are doomed to an eternal struggle, all the while making countless "tactical positioning", i.e. conquering, settling, evacuating and withdrawing every 40 years or so.

Well.... did I say already its a matter of opinion?

[Ophra]

Thank you. My point exactly. Talk about Arrogance. We on the left are soo smart, so proactive, soooo hot. You on the right are not! Nah nah nah nah nah nah!

What :confused: You sure spout some rubbish.
Where exactly do you stand ????
I don't think you understand a dern thing about Israeli politics..... there is one hell of a lot more involved than Left or Right ... this is not America ...<edited by moderator>

[sharonbn]

Ophra
I do wish you would stop with the anti diaspora line. Its really offensive for the non-Israeli here not to mention irrelevant.
OK, you expressed your opinion on them. please give it a rest.

[MGB8]

No, Sharonbn.

First of all, it is fact that after Oslo Arafat armed and financed (and probably directly ordered around) the terrorists and spread incitment. Do you deny this?

It is also fact that Hizbollah has an estimated 10,000 rockets in N. Lebanon and won't disarm, and that they have massively stepped up their involvement in the Territories. Do you deny this?

Now, you seem to be able to predict that "settlements would not have stopped an army" - which is a straw man, the settlements were there to DELAY an armies advance, as well as give notice (here, in terms of notice, technology has RECENTLY interceded, but had not at the time).

You also believe that had Israel been able to get may Pal Arabs to leave, and not allow so many more in from Jordan, and then Annexed the WB, giving the Pal Arabs citizenship, that Israel would have suffered 38 years of terror. Now, I might agree with that - but the question is - what level of terror and what level of effectiveness?

You also seem to assert that the Pal Arabs war has something to do with not having the vote. It doesn't. Ask them. Listen to what they say. It has to do with Israel's existence. If the vote helps them destroy Israel, they want the vote. This war IS NOT about occupation.

That's the thing. The left's solution is no solution at all. It is simply appeasement. Nothing more. But, the thing is, they can't be appeased. They demand the "right of return." They march with the keys. Do you think they will just drop this demand?

The ONLY solution is to win the war. To bloody the Arabs so much that they are no longer willing to fight - to sear into their conciousness, as Ayalon or Dayan said, that they have been defeated in their attempt to destroy Israel. Nothing more.

There is NO political solution. None. It doesn't exist. Other than maybe the destruction of Israel as a Zionist state. That the left keeps pretending there is is the big problem. They ignore reality. Unless you are ready to be a dhimmi... then there is a political solution.

[Aviva]

Ophra
I do wish you would stop with the anti diaspora line. Its really offensive for the non-Israeli here not to mention irrelevant.
OK, you expressed your opinion on them. please give it a rest.

Sorry, sharonbn but I think it's really out of order to edit Ophra's posts just because you think what she said was irrelevant.

[Ophra]

Ophra
I do wish you would stop with the anti diaspora line. Its really offensive for the non-Israeli here not to mention irrelevant.
OK, you expressed your opinion on them. please give it a rest.

I might.. because you asked..... only answer me this please ... why is it okay for them to constantly insult us for giving our honest opinions ???
Is it not enough that some on here revel in Rabin's murder to the point of boasting about desecrating his memorial and not one Diaspora mod or Admin has anything to say ??????
It's hypocracy sharonbn...... it's our country not their's ... they might not agree with our viewpoints or our politics ...but there is no need for the personal attacks and they do it over and over again .
I will grow up when they grow up ... and not before.

[minusthejihad]

it's our country not their's

It's our forum, not yours. :)

I will grow up when they grow up ... and not before.

Let's hope your kids understand that! I'm the rubber, you're the glue... Nah nah nah! - Spoken by a mother of 5. Brilliant.

[Mediocrates]

Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin Rabin

What a silly cult of personality. What else do you have besides iconic pictures on the wall?

[Mediocrates]

Wait let me rename the USA JFK and scream endlessly about how it's not Camelot anymore. Yeah let me do that. Because that works.

[Ophra]

Likud's moment of truth
By MEIR SHEETRIT

As a member of the Likud Party, I know that the disengagement from Gaza is not a perfect solution to our problems with the Palestinians. I know it is not a peace accord. But it is, undoubtedly, the right step in the long term.

Most of the public, including many opponents of the plan among Likud Knesset members, understand that in any final settlement our remaining in Gaza makes no sense.

Michael Ratzon and others opposed to disengagement explain their opposition by saying a pullout from Gaza will encourage terrorism or that we have to wait for an agreement with the Palestinians. They note there is a chance terrorism will continue even after we leave Gaza, and argue that the prime minister does not have a mandate for this move.
But a realistic appraisal of the situation tells me we should have left Gaza years ago.

Time is not working in Israel's favor. There are 7,500 Israeli civilians among a Palestinian population of 1.5 million. This is a hopeless and untenable situation. Israel has already paid a very heavy price, both in money and in life, to maintain its hold on Gaza. It makes no sense to continue paying that price.

There is no contradiction between pulling out of Gaza and our relentless battle against terrorism. That fight continues.

Withdrawal politically undermines any Palestinian justification for continued terror from Gaza. It places the international community in a position where, if terror from Gaza continues, it will have every reason to support Israel.

Our continuing control of Gaza makes Israel responsible for its Palestinian population. Considering the chaos that prevails there, we might find ourselves responsible for the livelihood, education, health, and day-to-day well-being of one and a half million residents – a tremendous financial burden.

Leaving Gaza is not, as I said, a peace accord. But it could be a positive development in that direction. If the Palestinians can manage their affairs in Gaza appropriately, our withdrawal can be a landmark step toward future progress in the peace process.

Opponents claim the disengagement plan is a departure from what Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told the electorate when he ran for office. In point of fact, Sharon spoke of "painful concessions" during the campaign – that's precisely why he received a broad mandate – 40 seats – from the people to carry it out.
He should be applauded for his leadership and for being willing to make a decision that is politically inexpedient inside the Likud.

History shows that leaders who made brave and correct decisions eventually receive the public's sympathy once the public understands that the decision was right for the nation. That was the case with Menachem Begin in the peace accord with Egypt, with Yitzhak Rabin in the peace accord with Jordan, and that will be the case for Arik Sharon.
It is hard and painful to uproot people from their land, especially when they were sent there by successive Israeli governments. Yet there are epochs in the life of a nation when the national interest must stand paramount over the private interest. This is one of those moments.

Therefore, we must show our empathy for the settlers and their pain; we must warmly embrace them, compensate them generously so they can rebuild their homes and businesses in other places, and even dare ask them to be pioneers once again and build – permanently – the Galilee and the Negev.

At the same time, we must reject out of hand the calls for IDF soldiers to refuse orders. We must reject the defamation of and threats against the prime minister. These must be taken seriously, considering the tragic experience of Yitzhak Rabin's assassination.

The prime minister's decision to make this move entailed substantial achievements in our relations with the Bush administration. The US is committed to giving Israel political support for the plan while opposing any other peace plan except for the road map to which Israel is committed. The US is committed to maintaining the large settlements in Judea and Samaria as part of Israel in a final settlement; American agrees that Israel will not retreat to the 1967 lines.

These might seem minor achievements to disengagement's opponents, but we must remember that in our struggle in the international arena we are almost alone against a pro-Palestinian world. The US's stance at Israel's side therefore requires Israel to agree with the administration on the way to achieve peace.

In our brief history we have seen instances where political leaders not holding supreme responsibility for the fate of the nation have been drawn to political extremism in relation to those who were in that position at the time.

But only someone sitting in the prime minister's chair understands, immediately, the limits of force and the need to have a reasonable relationship with the international community; only in that position does one understand that Israel is a small country, in many ways dependent on other states, and that our policies must take this reality into account.

The writer, a Likud MK, is minister of
transportation

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1098245485298&apage=2

[minusthejihad]

thanks ms. spamalot

[Ophra]

Support the Disengagement !!!!!!!!!!!

http://info.jpost.com/C005/Supplements/Disengagement/i/ph.gal/0707.09.jpg

http://info.jpost.com/C005/Supplements/Disengagement/i/ph.gal/0707.12.jpg

Demonstrators in Tel Aviv carry banners reading: Israel Is Leaving Gaza

http://info.jpost.com/C005/Supplements/Disengagement/i/ph.gal/0707.15.jpg

Members of youth movements rally for an Israeli pullout from Gaza

http://info.jpost.com/C005/Supplements/Disengagement/i/ph.gal/0707.03.jpg
Pro-disengagement activists shout slogans as they rally outside the Knesset to show support for the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip

http://info.jpost.com/C005/Supplements/Disengagement/i/ph.gal/0707.07.jpg
Peace rally in Tel Aviv: Evacuating Settlements - Choosing Life

[windowlicker]

sharonbn, i really admire your wholehearted belief that our relationship with the arabs can be rectified. you obviously believe that they are capable of some serious change. now, i wont call it foolish, but i honestly dont think its realistic.

this hatred is too ancient and powerful to be put out by negotiations over land or money. so many people and politicians have said this before me, especially bibi netanyahu: they won't stop until israel is completely gone. just listen to what your average muslim has to say in any part of the world, or check out the marches and cheering in palestinian cities every time a bus is blown up. it aint normal, but its there. and youre blind if you cant see it.

ill go with mgb8 on this.

and as for ophra and the issue of rabins death:
dont stop brining it up and discussing it. most religious rightists who were wishing for rabin to die now look back in regret feeling awfully stupid. others are primitive and still need to be educated. they dont understand certain essential and basic parts of our religion, and as a result end up acting in way that is a chilul hashem. this isnt how jews are supposed to behave. arabs behave like this.
someone ought to teach them about pluralism and respect....

[sharonbn]

First of all, it is fact that after Oslo Arafat armed and financed (and probably directly ordered around) the terrorists and spread incitment. Do you deny this?
No I don't deny this. I didn't say that Oslo was a glorious success story. I said I beieve it was not a total loss. In historical retrospect, the Oslo accord caused a shift in the public opinion of both the Israeli and Pal public. You couldn't get to 2000 Camp David summit w/o first signing the Oslo accord and showing the common poeple a glimpse of what the future agreement would look like.

The fault of the Oslo accord was in the implementation phase. The people who signed the agreement believed that each side would go about doing their obligation in good faith. This was true when Israel signed agreements with the Arab countries (cease fire agreements etc.) but it was not true with Arafat. The agreement should have stated audit mechanism to control the implementation. there were other faults as well.

It is also fact that Hizbollah has an estimated 10,000 rockets in N. Lebanon and won't disarm, and that they have massively stepped up their involvement in the Territories. Do you deny this?
I did not see any reports in the media about number of rockets that Hizbuallah has or that it EVER had significant influence in the territories (incl' the Lebanon war years.) For example, I do not recollect any Pal suicide bomb or other terror attack that was planned, financed or otherwise initiated by Hizbuallah.

I know only that Hizbuallah likes to present itself as important int'l factor and an ally of the Pals.

Now, you seem to be able to predict that "settlements would not have stopped an army" - which is a straw man, the settlements were there to DELAY an armies advance, as well as give notice (here, in terms of notice, technology has RECENTLY interceded, but had not at the time).
OK, I sinned with foreseeing the future as well. Maybe the Jordan valley settlements were able to play their role as planned. It still has nothing to do with settlements like Ganim and Kadim, situated in the outskirts of Nablus, or Beit Ell, situated in the outskirts of Ramallah, etc.

You also seem to assert that the Pal Arabs war has something to do with not having the vote. It doesn't. Ask them. Listen to what they say. It has to do with Israel's existence. If the vote helps them destroy Israel, they want the vote. This war IS NOT about occupation.
PA consistently claims that Pal desire is independance. You may get another answer if you ask Hamas, but this is the same as if you ask Noam Federman what is the goal of Israeli struggle against the Pals.

That's the thing. The left's solution is no solution at all. It is simply appeasement. Nothing more. But, the thing is, they can't be appeased. They demand the "right of return." They march with the keys. Do you think they will just drop this demand?
First of all, the left's solution is a solution. It is both a vision as well as laid out plan, with drawn borders and security arrangements and everything else.
You call it appeasement. fine. an appeasement is also a solution. Every proposal is a solution as long as it draws a future different then the present and how to get there.

When you claim that this proposal is not a solution you say that this is a bad solution, and that is where we differ. Yes I believe the Pals will drop the right of return demand. I believe it because I know the Israeli public made great changes in its opinions on what is needed to achieve peace. I know that the Pals did not make as great changes in their psyche as the Israelis, but I do believe that they will come to realise the impracticality of the right of return.

The ONLY solution is to win the war. To bloody the Arabs so much that they are no longer willing to fight - to sear into their conciousness, as Ayalon or Dayan said, that they have been defeated in their attempt to destroy Israel. Nothing more.
Good luck. as the present situation stands, the Pals are winning. It is usually (albait not always, I'll give you that) that the military power is defeated against popular uprising. Armies are not equiped and have poor record track in dealing with guerilla warfare and popular uprising.

[sharonbn]

sharonbn, i really admire your wholehearted belief that our relationship with the arabs can be rectified. you obviously believe that they are capable of some serious change. now, i wont call it foolish, but i honestly dont think its realistic.
Yes, I've been called naive many times. I accept if people are less optimistic than me as to the propect of Pals having rational thought process.

My point, other than what is mentioned above, is about the left and right in Israel. It seems to me, that the right wing, forced by the reality of the conflict, demographics, etc. implements left originated plans. It may be that the right is doing it for other reasons, but it is doing it nevertheless. The right unnecessarily delayedwhat could have been impolemented a while ago with greater ease.

this hatred is too ancient and powerful to be put out by negotiations over land or money. so many people and politicians have said this before me, especially bibi netanyahu: they won't stop until israel is completely gone. just listen to what your average muslim has to say in any part of the world, or check out the marches and cheering in palestinian cities every time a bus is blown up. it aint normal, but its there. and youre blind if you cant see it.
That is why my plan includes as much separation with as many Arabs as possible. I said it before, I think Israel should insist on annexation of Israeli Arab towns like Um El Fahem to Palestine. Israel only has a chance to survive if it controls and rules over as few Arabs as possible.

[sharonbn]

I do not wish to digress further with the issue I started with Ophra.
I made my point and hope it fell on open ears.

[MGB8]

Its pretty easy to find articles that deal with Hizbollah's armaments and their presence inside the territories. I don't have time right now, but I'll post later. You could look them up yourself, also. Its out there, plain as day.

Meanwhile, lets deal with your assertion about a "shift in Pal Arab opinion" and basing things of "what the PA says." Have you checked the poll numbers recently? The, what is it, Jerusalem institute just recently did one. I think we had a thread on this site that linked to it. The PA is just a small number of people in Fatah. Kaddomi represents the other half of Fatah (and then there are the Al-Aqsa brigades). They are not for Israel's existence. The Pal Arab public support for the "right of return" to not be given up is still very very high... higher than support for disengagement. Meanwhile, our fair PA still has pro-Israel-destruction TV, Newspaper, schoolbooks (with mild improvements) and Mosque speeches. The "plan of phases" is still in effect. They still do more or less NOTHING to stop terrorism. Why not? If the Pal Arab public was as you say, why wouldn't they stop them, fullfill their road map obligations (which would certainly put massive US pressure on Israel.) But, if the PA was afraid that the public would side with Al-Aqsa, PLFP, Hamas and IJ...

You are still in denial, even after all the evidence of Pal Arab intent. They shout it from the roof-tops but you insist on believing the couple of slick english speakers who say "ignore them, we want peace."

Oh, and the Pal Arabs are LOSING the war. Leftist defeatism at its finest in you. And stupidity. Their capabilities are lesser and lesser. Every time they get hit hard, the poll numbers supporting violence are down. The only hope they really have is the demographic weapon, and that is being denied to them. With no demographic hope of winning, they have to resort to attempted military victory, and we know what the result will be there.

Why is it that leftists are so eager to surrender? Haven't you learned from Neville Chamberlien?

The Gaza pullout isn't about surrender - it is about taking away the demographic weapon. Pure and simple. The Arabs are not near where you think they are. They might be... after thousands more are dead and they are convinced that total victory is not possible. And a full-scale war and mass-expulsion may well be a more likely outcome.

[SteveK]

SteveK,

...

The whole "Biblical right to Erez Yisrael" was as adoption by the national religious movement. The Zionists were initially secular and that is why law of Torah is not the basis of the lawbook of Israel.


sharonbn,

Leaving all the politics aside, including the Balfour Declaration, David Ben-Gurion led a super representation at that 1947 UN sub-committee hearing on what our ancestors (and God) passed in heritage to us,- Torah, and the Land of Israel.

But, you can relax, Ben Gurion's introduction of the Rabbi (Fishman? Frishman?) of the Zionist Party, at the time, to the sub-committee for testimony was prefaced with his being from the "religious wing" of the Zionist Party.

And, the point was clearly made that God, Torah, and the prayers for returning to the Jewish Homeland maintained our people through the centuries of every kind of hostile enviroment to the Jews conceivable.

You and me know that we are Jews and have a claim to the Land of Israel because of these "Orthodox" Jews, who survived those centuries, and who were at least able to pass that notion to us.

If our lives had been directed only by atheism, then where do you think that we would have been living? I don't think that there would have even been an "atheistic wing" of the Zionist Party,- given there wouldn't have been a Zionist Party to save Jews by Jews,- given that all parties concerned wouldn't have even known that they were Jews. So, who among such atheists (unknown as Jews to themselves) would have had the resolve to come to the early period Land of Israel to drain swamps and try to stay alive from malaria?

Jews were not defined by atheism. And, the Land of Israel was not defined by atheism. And, neither will be.

[MGB8]

Sharonbn.


You are NOT optimistic. You are scared. You are so scared that you are willing to fall on your knees and beg the enemy for mercy. Your statement about Israel losing shows just that.

I am scared too... but moreso of the US and Europe than of the Pal Arabs. The Pal Arabs could all be expelled in a month, if need be. They could be crushed just like the Syrians crushed the revolt in Hama or the Jordanians crushed their revolt. Militarily the biggest threat that they pose is that they make life so uncomfortable for Israelis, kill so many, that Israelis leave in the tens of thousands (Arafat's prediction, btw.) But Israel can make life harsh too, and that ability to strike back has deterred the Arabs very well, so that many more Israelis die in traffic accidents than from the Arab attacks.

Israel has WON the war against terror already. Its over. They lost. Israel has shown that its people can withstand what the Arabs have to give and continue to live normal lives.

What Israel has not won, yet, is the war against the demographic weapon, and the PR war in the international community. Israel is in a strong position, though. It does not have to give up everything, like you would argue. It has to give up just enough so that the Arabs have the potential to reach a viable state. It doesn't have to give it right away, too... the West isn't to eager to see a big war starting between a WB flooded with weapons and uncontrolled terrorists and Israel, and the potential mass expulsions. Gaza is the test case. Oslo was a test case, too, but the west is writing that off as Arafat. Now we can see if the Pal Arab populace, with their elections, can do it where Arafat failed. If they can't.... they will be gone.

[sharonbn]

MGB8,

Please have the courtesy to not presume to tell me what I am and what do I feel, as I don't tell you what you are or what you feel. I know what I am and what I feel better then you.

I did not start with this personal angle, you did. so allow me to remind you through all this rational imparitial debate that it is I, not you, who face the threat of Pal terrorism. and ultimately, after all the good advice and much needed support, it is left to us Israeli citizens to sort out the problem and then live with the consequences. So you may well feel you are not afraid of Pals, but then you really really have absolutely no reason to fear from them now do you.

I suggest we keep this prolific debate on impersonal lines.

[SteveK]

MGB8,

Please have the courtesy to not presume to tell me what I am and what do I feel, as I don't tell you what you are or what you feel. I know what I am and what I feel better then you.


I suggest we keep this prolific debate on impersonal lines.

sharonbn,

Yes, let's keep to the numbers. Instead of a few thousand Jews to expell from Gaza, had there been a few tens or hundreds of thousands of Jews in the land, then we wouldn't have the need to raise all this prolific debate.

Who might actually have been running scared, sharonbn? Perhaps, the diaspora Jews for not having made mass aliya when we had truly the victories in our hand with the unification of Jerusalem and the "territories" and the Golan?

[MGB8]

Motivation and foundation for beliefs has everything to do with it.

You said that you were optimistic about the Pal Arabs wanting peace. I said that's not optimism, its desparation born of fear.

That is, in my mind, the essential difference between the left and the right.

You are right, that I, personally, do not have to fear attacks on me. I do have to fear for family, but its not the same. Not nuclear family, either. But certainly others who live in Israel proper agree with me, in fact, I know they do - and so now I am speaking not just for me, but for them, for a group of people who share the same opinion.

The opinion is that the Israeli left, of which you are a part, though not the crazy Uri Avnery left, is terrified. From the fear comes appeasement and false hopes, because there is nothing else. Like I wrote, I am scared too, but not of the Pal Arabs. If it comes down to it, to all out war, Israel will win. Unfortunatly, too many Arabs haven't reached that conclusion yet, thinking that someone will step in to save them, but I have no doubts. It would be terrible. Many Israeli casualties, and many, many more Pal Arab causualties, tens of thousands. But Israel would crush them.

The difference between the right's approach to disengagement and the left is that the left does it out of the hope that the Pal Arabs might just have a change of heart, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The right does it as an end-game to ensure that Israel can win the over-arching war with the Pal Arabs. While there is overlap between the two - both are concerned with the demographic weapon, the right only makes concessions when necessary, whereas the left rushes to make more and more concessions, in the hope "making them like us." They will never like us, Sharonbn. They will hate us until eternity. Not all, but most. And frankly, I don't give a damn. The only thing that matters is securing Israel. You want to be reasonable in dealing with the Pal Arabs, you don't want to be inhuman, but you must take care of Israel first, because no matter what Israel does, they will still hate the Zionist entity and want, and work towards, its destruction. They will tell you as much.

I can understand a fear of the Gaza disengagement, too. Good lord, chances are that the Pal Arabs will smuggle in a ton of weapons, and they will use them. Its almost certain that they will - and they will use everything that Israel gives them to do so - a seaport, a train line to get weapons into the WB, the airport, the Egyptian border, etc. Israel needs to guard against these (especially the weapons into the WB issue) - 3rd party security paid for by Israel or Israeli customs and inspection.

The idea of a captive Gaza market is silly. Less silly is the fear of a black market of goods being snuck into Israel, but still, a minor consideration compared to the weapons that they will no doubt get.

That is very scary. But the demographic weapon is scarier. Embargo is scarier. Israel can respond to Pal Arab terrorism and defeat it. They did in the late 80's, until Oslo snatched defeat from the Jaws of victory, and they did again just now, until Arafat's death gave the terror groups some breathing room (this current so called cease fire). Sharon is making there job more difficult - part of that is disengagement, part is targetted killings and raids and checkpoints and the barrier (Mitzna would not have approved... poor little terrorists! extrajudicial blabadibla).

In the end, remember this. Israel did not start the 47-48 war. Israel did not start the 67 war, it was Egyptian acts of war. Israel did not start the Yom Kippur war. The Pal Arabs supported all 3, and this current war. If you support an offensive war, you expose yourself to negative consequences. They have lost the "right" to all of the WB and Gaza, just like they lost the "right" to all of partition "Arab Palestine." If you do not accept this, then be prepared for calls for Israel to be shrunk back to the size of the parition, because that is the logical extention of rejecting this argument. The only issue is what is necessary to keep Israel safe. Afterwords, to heck with them. But, if you really believe that giving them Camp David will really make them like, or even not hate, the Zionist entity... you are ignoring what they actually say, just like the left ignored what Arafat was saying. Don't make that mistake.

[MGB8]

SteveK,

You are right that I am scared. Not of terrorism... but of the fact that an American trained lawyer is not going to get a good job in a nation which already has high levels of unemployment. If i was an engineer, or a doctor, I might have better odds, although I hear that those fields are also overstuffed. Jews.

You are right that I have a duty to Israel. My first duty, however, is to myself and my closest family. I am not going to throw away everything I have worked for to make Aliyah at this point so that I can be a starving Israeli weighing down welfare while working construction. If I had a ton of money it would be a different story. You are upset about this - fine. You want to "disown" me? Fine. Thankfully for Israel, most Israelis are a little wiser. They accept political support and efforts and the little that people can donate, and understand that this helps the nation. Maybe not as much as Alliyah - but even if all 6 million or so American Jews made alliyah, it would still not be enough to easily absorb the Pal Arabs as citizens.

[redcake]

So you may well feel you are not afraid of Pals, but then you really really have absolutely no reason to fear from them now do you.

I'm sure you're aware the "Palestinian issue" has unfortunately become mistaken as the worlds problem. Americans overseas have been attacked in the name of the supposed Palestinian cause. Threats have been made, and it's very realistic to think that Jews outside of Israel may possibly be targeted. The Jewish diaspora is under a magnifying glass for how they react, and respond to the situation in Israel. The issue with Jews isn't a border issue.

So isn't this problem in part because many citizens of Israel tried desperately to block out the reality of these threats? For years Kibbutznicks would rather talk about Henna techniques in those bomb shelters, rather then the dire situation that was building. So I'm not sure that being an Israeli, and being vulenrable, qualifies the solution. Surely you understand that by legitamizing a threat, you only make it worse. This is why the term Stockholm Syndrome comes up so much.

[sharonbn]

ok i see where this is going
the leftist defeatists are afraid of the arabs boohoo boohoo we cry like frieghtened little children please please don't point that gun at me take everything you like.
and now with the stockholm syndrom i guess we are also arab lovers and sympathyse with them suicide bombing us
fine you defeated one more leftist appeaser you can continue this discussion among yourselves

[MGB8]

Its not an issue of defeat or not defeat. It is an issue of priorities. Is your priority that the Pal Arabs get a really good deal, despite the fact that there are reasons for them not to get a good deal (ie. continued support for the destruction of Israel and community involvement in several multi-national attempts at genocide/Israel's destruction; precedent that would open up interior green-line Israel to claims...), or is the priority ensuring the survival of Israel.

The lefty reponse is usually "both."

But its NOT both unless you believe that giving them everything they want, except the right of return, will actually satisfy them to the point where they would not only stop supporting the destruction of Israel and terror attacks, but would actually take steps to fight other pal Arabs and Arabs who want to do those things. The overwhelming evidence, however, points to the idea that they will not stop. So why make such concessions, giving the Pal Arabs what they do not deserve, more than what is require to secure Israeli politically and demographically? The only reason that is clear, other than those who have completely been suckered by the Arab narrative (Israel's creation is the original sin), is one of great fear - that Israel must take any risk to try to get them not to hate us, because if they don't stop, we will lose. This is the fear that you unwittingly expressed in your post.

But, Israel will NOT lose. Israel has already won, in that regards. Terrorism, while terrible, murderous, is contained and survived. It can be responded to in a way that makes the Pal Arabs cry "uncle" - it was just recently done, and it was done in response to the first intifadah, too.

Israel is a strong state. Sure, it will need to send its sons and daughters to fight for generations... maybe in perpetuity. Israel may never be a "normal" state like the US or Europe, with friends at its borders. It almost certainly won't be for at least 3 generations, given education and attitudes in Arab nations.

Israel's major weaknesses are political/economic (and as a subset of political, demographic.) Arik Sharon is working to address these weaknesses, only. What the Pal Arabs do from there is more or less irrelevant, Israel will be able to repond in kind, one way or the other. What the left asks for is to jump past the war and offer concessions for a peace that is illusory - no amount of concessions will be enough.

Make no mistake, Sharon is leading Israel to victory in this war. But giving them everything would be, again, snatching defeat from the Jaws of victory. Sharon's tactic is to give them Gaza in order to relieve the political and economic pressures, then make them earn the WB. It is a gamble... that Israel will continue to be allowed to reliate in-proportion, and that the West will get sick of the Pal Arabs generally if they keep attacking just like they got sick of Arafat.

I think its a pretty good bet, though. Especially reading Blair's statements.

[redcake]

ok i see where this is going
the leftist defeatists are afraid of the arabs boohoo boohoo we cry like frieghtened little children please please don't point that gun at me take everything you like.
and now with the stockholm syndrom i guess we are also arab lovers and sympathyse with them suicide bombing us
fine you defeated one more leftist appeaser you can continue this discussion among yourselves

<edited by moderator>

Only, you missed the point. The majority of Israel was asleep at the wheel for years. They put all their energy into like Seeds of Peace and pretending the Palestinian Authority aren't the PLO.... and it didn't change the reality. It sure didn't bring peace, or make anyone love Israel. All the while, when has the Peace Now clique ever admitted their strategy was misguided, and has reaped little rewards? I trusted the Israelis of 1973 to know best, but the Israelis of the 80's and 90's took great risks that failed, and they should have known better. This is why Sharon felt the need to tell the world Israel wouldn't be Czechoslovakia.

[SteveK]

SteveK,

You are right that I am scared. Not of terrorism... but of the fact that an American trained lawyer is not going to get a good job in a nation which already has high levels of unemployment. If i was an engineer, or a doctor, I might have better odds, although I hear that those fields are also overstuffed. Jews.

You are right that I have a duty to Israel. My first duty, however, is to myself and my closest family. I am not going to throw away everything I have worked for to make Aliyah at this point so that I can be a starving Israeli weighing down welfare while working construction. If I had a ton of money it would be a different story. You are upset about this - fine. You want to "disown" me? Fine. Thankfully for Israel, most Israelis are a little wiser. They accept political support and efforts and the little that people can donate, and understand that this helps the nation. Maybe not as much as Alliyah - but even if all 6 million or so American Jews made alliyah, it would still not be enough to easily absorb the Pal Arabs as citizens.


MGB8,

That's exactly what the Arabs want to hear from diaspora Jews like you:
FEAR wrapped in that extra gurantee of Jews being solidly anchored to the good life in Christian lands. Mass Jewish settlement in all the Land of Israel is a more devasting threat to the Arabs than our nuclear option of war. How many tens of billions of dollars could be invested in Israel, with your mass aliya, given the liquidation of your assets now being used for your American suburban institutionalized Judaism?

And, why use the word "PAL" Arabs? These Arabs and their surrounding nations are not the "PALs" of Israel, but are our deadly enemies.

You diaspora Jews are not to be compared with an Italian diaspora. Being a better Italian in Brooklyn than in Rome doesn't enter into even the imagination of the Italian nation. But, the Jews have made such an otherwise imaginary and abnormal concept into a reality that a Jew can be and even should be a better Jew in Brooklyn than in Jerusalem. You diaspora Jews are not only a major obstruction to Israel's progress, but actively engage to tear into the resolve of the Israeli society by luring Israelis, given their concerns also for themselves and closest family, to be "better Jews" and richer ones too with you in suburban America.

As an attorney, you should be acutely aware that holding onto your Homeland can't be achieved like an absentee landlord with a deed. Who gurantees you and your family open gates to Israel,--- except for those
"starving Israelis weighing down welfare while working construction". Yes, it's these Israelis weighing down welfare while working construction, the builders and fighters of the your Homeland, who allow you and your family to get your Jewish jollies here in your Homeland on the accounts of their real life and death sacrifices.

I have said all of this in my previous posts.

You don't stir in me any appreciation, but only fears, anxieties, and contempt. The return to Jewish sovereignty is only a little more than 50 years old. Your diaspora is more than 2,000 years in its establishment.
Israel can't go another 50 years with your mentality and perversion of the Jewish heritage. Israel can't go another 50 years with the Israelis' perversion of the Jewish heritage.

The Jews are their own worst enemy.

[Ophra]

Make no mistake, Sharon is leading Israel to victory in this war. But giving them everything would be, again, snatching defeat from the Jaws of victory. Sharon's tactic is to give them Gaza in order to relieve the political and economic pressures, then make them earn the WB. It is a gamble... that Israel will continue to be allowed to reliate in-proportion, and that the West will get sick of the Pal Arabs generally if they keep attacking just like they got sick of Arafat.

I think its a pretty good bet, though. Especially reading Blair's statements.

That's a very good assessment MGB8 ... I like reading your posts, your one of a few that make any sense around here .
Sometimes I give up hope.... I just watched an interview on Israeli TV with a Palestinian spokeswoman , I don't remember her name ... young and good looking, also a lawyer.... all she did was whine and cry about us not making enough concessions .... that Hamas , although wrong :rolleyes: , were justified to attack during disengagement because although we were giving them Aza we were still leaving them locked up in a giant prison . Geez :(

[Ophra]

Yo !! ...... Careful MGB8, I think they are reading the forums :D

This just in on breaking news :......

Abbas: If Sharon withdraws only from Gaza, he does not want peace

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said during an interview with United Arab Emirates newspaper al Khaleej, “We are familiar with (Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon’s words, ideas and opinions. Perhaps he would be satisfied with a withdrawal from Gaza, but this would mean Sharon does not want peace.”

“If Sharon does not want peace – this means he would be held responsible for disturbances that would ensue in the region and all around the world,” he said. (Ynetnews)

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3118657,00.html

[SteveK]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MGB8

Make no mistake, Sharon is leading Israel to victory in this war. But giving them everything would be, again, snatching defeat from the Jaws of victory. Sharon's tactic is to give them Gaza in order to relieve the political and economic pressures, then make them earn the WB. It is a gamble... that Israel will continue to be allowed to reliate in-proportion, and that the West will get sick of the Pal Arabs generally if they keep attacking just like they got sick of Arafat.

I think its a pretty good bet, though. Especially reading Blair's statements.


Ophra:

That's a very good assessment MGB8 ... I like reading your posts, your one of a few that make any sense around here .


Ophra,

.... and, perfectly in line with your yearning in your soul for peace:

<edited by moderator>

[Luke90]

<edited by moderator>
Which arabs?

[MGB8]

Sharon's response will be simple. Dissarm the terrorists, end the attacks and incitement... and we will talk and peice by peice we will transfer over control of parts of the WB to you, until we get close to a final settlement. But if you are not willing to control the violence when you have already gotten Gaza for doing nothing, why should we believe that you will do it in the WB. We have proven that we are willing to give you land. What happens now is up to you, not us.

Yo !! ...... Careful MGB8, I think they are reading the forums :D

This just in on breaking news :......

Abbas: If Sharon withdraws only from Gaza, he does not want peace

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said during an interview with United Arab Emirates newspaper al Khaleej, “We are familiar with (Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon’s words, ideas and opinions. Perhaps he would be satisfied with a withdrawal from Gaza, but this would mean Sharon does not want peace.”

“If Sharon does not want peace – this means he would be held responsible for disturbances that would ensue in the region and all around the world,” he said. (Ynetnews)

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3118657,00.html

[Cato]

Ariel Sharon ordered disengagement from Gaza in order to give the Palestinians something for nothing in order to prove Israel still is seeking peace and willing to give painful concessions to get it.

When Abbas fulfills his obligations Sharon will be willing to give more up, but unless Abbas is willing to destroy terrorist organizations, and end incitement he should settle for Gaza Strip.

[Ephraim]

Greetings all.

This has been an excellent thread and I have learned a lot from the several perspectives presented. It has been about a year since I last posted on this forum. While away I spent quite a bit of time on a couple of Islamic sites; trying to determine if there was any common bond that could be built between the West and the Islamic side.

I decided to return to this site after reading the excellent debate on this thread. If you will accept the opinion of an outsider; and of a Christian no less; I would like to give you my take on the Gaza pullout.

I believe it was good for Israel to pull out of Gaza.

The West has been clamoring for years about a Palestinian State; even the US has moved from absolute rejection of such an idea, to agreement with Europe that “some form” of Palestinian State should exist. So the pressure has been building for years for such creation. If Israel does nothing, some future US Administration may join the UN in creating a Palestinian State over the objections of Israel (shades of 1948).

The creation of a Palestinian State in Gaza will put much of the clamor to rest for a while. Israel and the US can argue that the world should wait and see what happens with the first breath of true Palestinian independence. France and other European States will get the chance to feed and supply Gaza; Israel will be freed from the political bondage of the Gaza millstone.

On the military front, the settlements were a drain and the constant visual presence of Israeli troops in Gaza was a recruiting tool for Hamas. Israel can now pull back and have national borders to defend versus an occupation to defend.

A couple of years ago I recommend that Israel leave Gaza; complete the fence/wall around Gaza; and then post several batteries of 155mm artillery around within striking range of the whole area. Charles Krauthammer today mentioned something similar; a six- to- one automatic response policy (kind of like the “old” Israel would have done). For every rocket that comes from Gaza, six return (he actually said six rockets return…but shells are cheaper than rockets). I would recommend Israeli retaliatory shells be targeted at Hamas areas.

So, with the creation of a Palestinian State in Gaza, Israel is freed to treat Gaza as a foreign country with full right to retaliate should attacks come from that independent country. Additionally, the world can watch to see if the Palestinians can control themselves. If, in the future, a miracle occurs and the Palestinians become a civilized State then debate can start about the West Bank.

I doubt that will ever happen by the way.

So, I am going to agree with Sharonbn that there does not appear to be any other policy that might work. The one policy that Medio alludes to of “finding a hole” would have worked with the Old Israel. The New Israel is too divided to perform such a task; just as I believe the US is too divided to do what is necessary to win the war on terrorism.

I will also agree with MGB8 that the Gaza pullout is smart from a military perspective and that it is highly likely that Israel will continue to be attacked from Gaza. The difference will be that the Israeli response can be more effective should that happen. In no case however, would I ever recommend that Israel reoccupy Gaza. Israel can handle things via the aforementioned 155mm’s.

I will disagree with MGB8, and therefore agree with Ophra, regarding the decision for world Jews to move to Israel. Israel is in the most critical time of her post Roman history, and as has been mentioned before, the demographic time bomb is clicking. Your people need you more than does your Law firm. And even though my daughter plans to attend Law School next year, I still say that a Construction worker is more important to society than is an Attorney :D . Kidding aside, if I were Jewish, I would be in Israel trying to save her from her enemies without.

But in the end, I think Mediocrates may have hit it on the head with his pessimistic view of the future of Israel. Reading the thread, I detect real animosity between the Secular Jews and the Religious Jews….both looking at each other with contempt. History has shown time and time again, that when the Israel goes to war with itself, the invaders walk in and the Jews are thrown out.

Never again?

Respectfully,
Ephraim, the former Alfred

[HaNavi]

No spam, please.

[MGB8]

That was a long post to show the callousness of a person who doesn't agree with the settlers.

The Settlers believed they were patriots - protecting Israel from the Arabs, and furthermore they had built homes in these settlements.

They were upset when they were forcibly removed from their homes by their government, just as a person would be upset if they're home was taken from them, and they expelled, by use of eminent domain.

Its true that the rhetoric is over-the-top - with the holocaust analogies that the hard right uses. this wasn't anything like the Nazis. But putting Jews on buses, kicking them out of their homes... there are things that cause one to think about the other, even if there is no parallel.

There is no exploitation... there is simply sadness at having to leave, and sadness of Jewish soldiers who had to carry out the will of the majority.

[sharonbn]

Yeshayahu Liebowitz, the beloved Israeli philosopher once wrote “The newly occupied territories would become an untenable burden for the country because they would force Israel to become a repressive society”. His prediction came true, and the disengagement is proof of that. Too bad he didn’t live to see it.
wow....... quoting Yeshayahu Liebowitz as a defender of the israeli colonies....
hilarious!! good to see you didn't lose your sense of humor

[Mira]

I didn't want to open a new thread for this, but it's not just Jews who are being evacuated. Arabs are also being evacuated from Gaza to Israel because they are afraid of what will happen to them since they helped the settlers build their houses in exchange for property. They are referred to as "collaborators" in the article.


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2A6024C3-C585-41FC-AB9D-34AEF4ECAE3D.htm