Expel Arabs instead?

[genghis_tom]

Through my experiences on this forum, I have seen many grumbling discussions on the expulsions of settlers and on withdrawing, giving land to the Palestinians. My question is, and by my wondering I am not by any means insulting Islam or any Muslim, what would happen if Israel were to expel all Arabs from Israel (meaning present borders + West Bank and Gaza Strip)?

Could Israel survive the ensuing Arab response?
Probably, I think. Besides the amazing training/effectiveness of Israel's military, there is always the threat of nuclear attack. (I assume Israel is a nuclear power even though it is not official)

Is this to Israel's advantage?

There are a lot of other issues with these questions, especially regarding international responses and diplomacy between all parties, economic sanctions, etc., but this should be enough to chew on right now.

[Roland]

The arab response to any israeli action would of cause be something like "Jihad now!", "Intifada now!", "Revenge!", "More bombs!" and so on in various combinations and inventing some new and old buzzwords while at it.
The ideas is attractive, but if it could be realized alone on the political stage is IMO not so likely or easy, though.
And you know about how many people you want to deport? Was it 15% or 20% of Israel's population?
And you know where to put them? Jordan? Lebanon? Antarctica?
And you know how to prevent them from going back home, maybe armed since no neighbouring country could equip a stampede of say 250.000 men (plus women and kids) with enough food, water and shelter, but most likely guns and dynamite instead in a matter of days/weeks/months?
Do you want to guard a checkpoint facing 100.000 angry homeless and hungry gun-men right beyond your toll gate?
Ooops?, genghis_tom? :D

[Toga]

Oy, those Rolands...they don't know what they are talking about.

If you ask a hypothetical question you will get a hypothetical answer.

[Roland]

Oy, those Rolands...they don't know what they are talking about.

If you ask a hypothetical question you will get a hypothetical answer.
Duh, those Togas ...
[ x ] Toga understood correctly about the hypothetical nature of the question.
[ x ] Toga understood correctly about the hypothetical nature of the answer.
[ x ] Toga won't ever miss an opportunity for a sneer.
[ - ] Toga showed humor.
[ - ] Toga had a productive comment on the topic.

[Annaliese]

Could Israel survive the ensuing Arab response?

Yes.

[genghis_tom]

The arab response to any israeli action would of cause be something like "Jihad now!", "Intifada now!", "Revenge!", "More bombs!" and so on in various combinations and inventing some new and old buzzwords while at it.
Precisely. An expected response gives Israel a chance to prepare in the appropriate manner, be it minefields or fortifications.
The ideas is attractive, but if it could be realized alone on the political stage is IMO not so likely or easy, though.
Of course.
And you know about how many people you want to deport? Was it 15% or 20% of Israel's population?
According to http://www.mideastweb.org/misrael.htm , "Israel has a population of over 6.5 million, of whom about 14.5% are Muslims and about 3% are Druze or Christian... They have a population estimated at about 3 million..." Yes, expulsion would be extremely difficult if not impossible.
And you know where to put them? Jordan? Lebanon? Antarctica?
Israel doesn't put them anywhere but out. It becomes the problem of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, etc.
And you know how to prevent them from going back home, maybe armed since no neighbouring country could equip a stampede of say 250.000 men (plus women and kids) with enough food, water and shelter, but most likely guns and dynamite instead in a matter of days/weeks/months?
Do you want to guard a checkpoint facing 100.000 angry homeless and hungry gun-men right beyond your toll gate?
Any five members of the house of Saud can fund a big portion of refugee costs. Like I said before, oil money can take anything on it's shoulders. Regarding your hordes of angry Arabs: if this situation ever happens, war is inevitable and as such, how many rifles equals a couple of jets?

[minusthejihad]

The arab response to any israeli action would of cause be something like "Jihad now!", "Intifada now!", "Revenge!", "More bombs!" and so on in various combinations and inventing some new and old buzzwords while at it.

I think we've all learned by now that the threat of "Arab Rage" or the "Rage of the Arab Street" are as impotent as their societies are with dealing with their own internal problems. The Arab World is already enraged, "Jihad Always" is the normal threat level they have operated at since the end of colonialism. I don't believe we have to worry about the "Arab Street" that much, as its always more hyperbole than anything. What we need to worry about is the quiet indoctrination of Westernized Arabs into the Islamist Agenda, such as the 9-11 terrorists.

[Shohad]

Transfer is certainly an option, but trying to avoid a Palestinian state in the future is not serious.

I look favorably at population and territory shifts that will include expelling the Arabs from the western part of Judea and Samaria and Eastern Jerusalem, handing over wadi ara and the ‘triangle’ (where most Israeli Arabs live) to the PA and evacuating remote Jewish settlements.

That will create truly a situation of ‘two countries for two nations” and not a Palestine for Arabs and Israel waiting to become a bi-national country and then God knows what.

No need to say how problematic the thing is though.

[Annaliese]

Transfer is certainly an option...

Now of a different mindset, (as Sir Winston Churchill said, "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind ..."), I throw caution to the wind (see reason I posted for my edit of post #5 above) ... why not return the "favor" given to us by so many for so long?

Go ahead and lecture me about how Jews are supposed to be guided by "superior" tenets ... I don't care what any rationalizing appeaser has to say any longer. :D :cool:

[Ariksan]

In the long run transfer is the only option. There is no need to transfer out all Arabs because they are Arabs though. First of all the so called refugees need to be absorbed by countries occupied by Arab imperialist invaders - just like Israel absorbed all Jewish refugees that were expelled from the countries of the Arab invaders. This would ease the so called demographic pressure enormously. Secondly - after annexation of Judea and Samaria - people that don't accept Israels souvereignity would simply be expelled like any sane country would do.

[peacemaker]

i totally disagree about the israelian troops,what about 6th of october on 1973 with egypt :S
its chaos, we'll never survive:S

[sharonbn]

Secondly - after annexation of Judea and Samaria - people that don't accept Israels souvereignity would simply be expelled like any sane country would do.
What poeple? What about Israelis who will not accept the annexation?

[Ariksan]

What poeple? What about Israelis who will not accept the annexation?

If you turn into a terrorist, sure. In my book there is no difference between Jews and non-Jews in this regard.

[NewsGuy]

Through my experiences on this forum, I have seen many grumbling discussions on the expulsions of settlers and on withdrawing, giving land to the Palestinians. My question is, and by my wondering I am not by any means insulting Islam or any Muslim, what would happen if Israel were to expel all Arabs from Israel (meaning present borders + West Bank and Gaza Strip)?

Could Israel survive the ensuing Arab response?

Of course sending the Palestinians back to their homelands of Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Arabia, etc., is the ideal solution to the Mideast conflict, because it would stop the bloodshed and allow both Arabs and Jews to live freely and independently in their respective homelands.

In reality, though, this solution will only remain an elusive dream, unfortunately.

In terms of the Arab response to such a population transfer, it is not a problem at all. The Arab masses are basically irrelevant in a direct sense, but if Israel would transfer the 1.5 Arabs in question into neighboring Arab states, they would quickly overthrow the current U.S.-friendly governments of those states. This scenario would cause the U.S. to oppose such a transfer, and since Israeli foreign policy is dictated by Washington, the idea would be DOA.

However, what is possible if there was a competent government in Israel, it could insist on reciprocal population transfers, whereby each Israeli settlement that is evacuated would also be accompanied by sending the residents of an Arab village into the Palestinian territories, the U.S. may allow it. Unfortunately, if Olmert's incompetent defeatist team wins the elections, this type of idea would not even be on the agenda.

Probably, I think. Besides the amazing training/effectiveness of Israel's military, there is always the threat of nuclear attack. (I assume Israel is a nuclear power even though it is not official)
One thing to keep in mind is that for a long time now the Israeli army has been losing every critical battle to the Islamic terrorist groups. The IDF is no longer a mighty force, since it has been defeated by Hizbullah and Hamas, and unable to defend Jewish towns and strategic facilities against rocket attacks by Arabs. Some blame it on the political echelon, but either way, the IDF can no longer be counted on for much of anything.

[Gilgamesh]

While I agree generaly to the first passage, a limited transfare as well as population swap is in order and probable, giving a strong potent goverment at the helm. Which, we haven't.

One thing to keep in mind is that for a long time now the Israeli army has been losing every critical battle to the Islamic terrorist groups. The IDF is no longer a mighty force, since it has been defeated by Hizbullah and Hamas, and unable to defend Jewish towns and strategic facilities against rocket attacks by Arabs. Some blame it on the political echelon, but either way, the IDF can no longer be counted on for much of anything.

On this I can't fully agree. The IDF is a potent as ever. Yet a combination of generals looking for political possition and fearing international courts while having little trust on Israel's goverment backing, prefer inaction and paralasis. Complaining about foreing political pressure has less risk to their career then action, which can make a different can cost some blood on both sides.

There is another problem of soldiers giving in to far left propaganda campaign, with no real counter to the psychological warfare produced by nutty proffesors and European bribes (sorry, "contributions" to academic and political "peace" centers, movement ect... ). No one knows exactly the affects or the extent of the phenomena.

Last but not least. The goverment also is weak. Keeping the army on short leash and allowing only half massures which have very short time affect, at best. I so support the focused elimination of arch terrorists, regardless of the current phase of their involvement in terrorism. However, this policy must be sustained for long duration if it is going to make a change. Now and then actions, carry limited gains.

[MGB8]

Israel could easily survive the Arab response, which, frankly, wouldn't be that much. It could not survive the INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE, which would be to treat Israel as a parriah state and isolate, even blockade it.

The only way such a transfer would ever happen and yet Israel survive would be if the Arabs started another large scale war, which, given their course of behavior, is not so unlikely.

However, Israel must show the international community right now that it is willing to entertain such thoughts, IF the international community is willing to allow the Arab side to entertain them. In other words, if europe at all recognizes Hamas in terms of anything but a parriah government, ala the Nazi regime, appartheid South Africa, etc., then Israel must take the lesson that ethnic cleansing of your neighbors is now, for europe, an acceptable national policy.

[JaboLucius]

However, Israel must show the international community right now that it is willing to entertain such thoughts, IF the international community is willing to allow the Arab side to entertain them.

I believe that Isreal should kick the Arabs out. As far as I can see, Arabs have never been marginalized like the Jews have been and continue to be. Sultans, dictators, and radical Muslim zealots have far too long exerted some sort of control over the children of Jacob. I know that it is a blessing to be persecuted in the name of the one true G-d, Yahweh, however, the state of Israel should not waiver in this matter. Regardless of how G-d will judge those of the Islamic faith, Jews should hold on to what they have and regain what they have lost.

[PILMAN]

I wouldn't necessarily say expel arabs but rather muslims.

[JaboLucius]

Well, okay Muslims if that helps you sleep at night. I merely used Arabs because I thought that they were synonymous with the Islamic faith. I am curious though, what other religions do Arabs acknowledge?

The Oil gods? Or maybe the Sand gods?

Just kidding.

[golani]

Transfer is certainly an option, but trying to avoid a Palestinian state in the future is not serious.

I look favorably at population and territory shifts that will include expelling the Arabs from the western part of Judea and Samaria and Eastern Jerusalem, handing over wadi ara and the ‘triangle’ (where most Israeli Arabs live) to the PA and evacuating remote Jewish settlements.

That will create truly a situation of ‘two countries for two nations” and not a Palestine for Arabs and Israel waiting to become a bi-national country and then God knows what.

No need to say how problematic the thing is though.
Shalom Shohad,

I do think Avigdor Liebermann has copyrights on these ideas :D
Kol tov ,
golani

[Visitor]

Were you envisioning loading Arabs into railway cars when you transport them from greater Israel? Lebensraum has a nice ring to it...

I just dropped by and saw this rather silly conversation and couldn't restrain myself from commenting. You may not have a problem with the Arab governments surrounding Israel, but I doubt western governments would ignore such treatment of beleaguered Palestinians. I can imagine the news reports flashing images around the world of IDF troops dragging old women and children kicking and screaming out of hovels and tossing them into the back of army lorries. I appreciate, of course, that Israel is notorious for poking its stick in the eye of both foe and friend when it serves the purpose of its leaders. But this would be too much for even Israel's best friends to stomach.

You'll either have to live with two states, or one in which the Jews of Israel will soon be outnumbered by the Arabs/Palestinians. I often wonder what would happen if the Palestinians simply threw up their hands and said, "you take care of us." Withdrawal for funds by countries who object to Hamas historical antipathy toward Israel might quickly bring us to that situation. Won't that be fun?

[Rory Blackhand]

One thing to keep in mind is that for a long time now the Israeli army has been losing every critical battle to the Islamic terrorist groups. The IDF is no longer a mighty force, since it has been defeated by Hizbullah and Hamas, and unable to defend Jewish towns and strategic facilities against rocket attacks by Arabs. Some blame it on the political echelon, but either way, the IDF can no longer be counted on for much of anything.

I think that is a bit misleading. The IDF is fully capable of waging war to victory. If the Palestinians suddenly produced tanks and heavy artillery the IDF would decimate them in short order. It is political will more than military might that is required to fight low intensity wars. With political will the conflict could end in weeks with the army you have now.

Terror is different tactic that has been used all thru history. The difference today is that to fight this brutal tactic requires a brutal response. Modern man is unwilling to carry thru the heavy handed violence that is required to destroy terrorists.

Good or bad, the unwillingness to use effective tactics to counter terrorism has led us to the slow bleed situation. Guerilla war is not the full out high intensity conflict. To me the choice is simple. Either use the military force you have to evict the Arabs to defensibile borders such as the Jordan river, or suffer from terror attacks until your own existance is at an end.

The Palestinians need to understand they have been defeated or they will not give up the struggle. Defeat in my opinion means a total humiliation militarily, a loss of all the disputed land, and physical relocation. The military you have is perfectly able to see this done in weeks, the leaders and civilian population is your weakness.

[MGB8]

Well, the "poke its stick" comment implies some anti-Israel bias, but lets deal with your premise - that the two options are two states or one state where Pal Arabs are the majority.

What happens, visitor, if the Arabs are unwilling to compromise and continue to committ acts of war? What if Israel unilaterally withdraws, but then rockets start hitting Ben Gurion airport, or a major terrorist attack succeeds in killing 10,000 Israelis (the % equivalent of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND AMERICANS - 140 9/11's in one shot.) They have tried, you know.

If that happens, or a smaller attack, 1,000 Israelis die... you can bet that Israel will indeed expell all the Arabs from the territories, because there will be no other option except surrender and likely death. When its expell or be killed, you expell.

Nice attempt at a Holocaust analogy, with the rail cars, though. I really do wish that the Germans had merely expelled the Jews, don't you?

Oh, you do know that Kuwait expelled more than 100,000 Pal Arabs after the Gulf war? And it seems that you don't have a problem with Israel expelling tens, even hundreds of thousands of Jews on railcars? Or do you have a problem with that?

Were you envisioning loading Arabs into railway cars when you transport them from greater Israel? Lebensraum has a nice ring to it...

I just dropped by and saw this rather silly conversation and couldn't restrain myself from commenting. You may not have a problem with the Arab governments surrounding Israel, but I doubt western governments would ignore such treatment of beleaguered Palestinians. I can imagine the news reports flashing images around the world of IDF troops dragging old women and children kicking and screaming out of hovels and tossing them into the back of army lorries. I appreciate, of course, that Israel is notorious for poking its stick in the eye of both foe and friend when it serves the purpose of its leaders. But this would be too much for even Israel's best friends to stomach.

You'll either have to live with two states, or one in which the Jews of Israel will soon be outnumbered by the Arabs/Palestinians. I often wonder what would happen if the Palestinians simply threw up their hands and said, "you take care of us." Withdrawal for funds by countries who object to Hamas historical antipathy toward Israel might quickly bring us to that situation. Won't that be fun?

[MGB8]

Oh, and you miss one point, which is that Israel should have the option on the table if (and only if) the International community feels that Hamas, with its platform of genocide at worst and expulsion/domination at best, is a government that deserves aid and contacts.

[MGB8]

from Debka.com

DEBKAfile Exclusive: Palestinians are manufacturing new multiple-rocket launchers with Palestinian Authority funding

March 30, 2006, 10:14 AM (GMT+02:00)

The broad program involving all the armed Palestinian organizations is close to producing a facsimile of the Russian-made Grad, renamed Quds-3, supplied by Iran, which can simultaneously fire 10 rockets from a truck to a distance of 18-30 km. The system weighs 13 tons and enables a crew of 7-10 Palestinians firing from the Gaza Strip to hit not only the Israeli port of Ashkelon, but Ashdod to the north too, as well as the towns of Netivot and Ofakim to the east.

The system was proudly displayed to Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas when he visited the Gaza Strip last week.

DEBKAfile’s military sources: The new 122mm rocket, test-fired against Ashkelon on Israel’s election-day, Tuesday, March 28, weighs 66 kilos and carries 17 kilos of explosives. It was developed in Palestinian workshops in the Gaza Strip on instructions from Iranian instructors using the Russian-Made Grad and BM21 Katyusha as their model. Several dozen rockets are already in stock, substantially upgrading the Palestinian war arsenal with a heavy artillery system and extending its long-range assault capability. The product currently produce is wire-operated. The crew pulls back some 60 meters from the launcher and releases the rockets by pulling the wire.

A ten-rocket volley has a far better chance of hitting an Israeli target than the hit-or-miss, primitive Qassam missiles fired daily from the Gaza Strip.

Our military experts point out that, as the Americans discovered in Iraq, sophisticated weaponry, including drones and electronic surveillance, offers no solution to countering roadside bombs and rockets fired on the ground. The Palestinians have concluded that, even if the Israeli air force knocks out some of their Quds-3 rocket systems, they will still be left with enough launchers to cause heavy Israeli casualties and damage in the towns within range of Gaza.

[Mil]

Grad is just an updated Katusha system aka WWII style. Very effective and very powerful.

If the Palies will decide a full scale Katusha war at Israel - then they'll get a war of very unproportional scales. There is technology to detect trajectories of this things to pin-point the exact location of such devices. Whenever such a thing fires an Apache will take half a block hunting for it.

[Hebrew Swede]

Through my experiences on this forum, I have seen many grumbling discussions on the expulsions of settlers and on withdrawing, giving land to the Palestinians. My question is, and by my wondering I am not by any means insulting Islam or any Muslim, what would happen if Israel were to expel all Arabs from Israel (meaning present borders + West Bank and Gaza Strip)?

Could Israel survive the ensuing Arab response?
Probably, I think. Besides the amazing training/effectiveness of Israel's military, there is always the threat of nuclear attack. (I assume Israel is a nuclear power even though it is not official)

Is this to Israel's advantage?

There are a lot of other issues with these questions, especially regarding international responses and diplomacy between all parties, economic sanctions, etc., but this should be enough to chew on right now.

I think we should spend money building homes for the Palestinians in Greenland, spray their airspace with a sleeping drug and then move them quietly to their new homes. :D

[genghis_tom]

I think we should spend money building homes for the Palestinians in Greenland, spray their airspace with a sleeping drug and then move them quietly to their new homes. :D
As if that would work. We all know how popular Denmark is with Palestinians right now.... ;)

[genghis_tom]

If the Palies will decide a full scale Katusha war at Israel - then they'll get a war of very unproportional scales. There is technology to detect trajectories of this things to pin-point the exact location of such devices. Whenever such a thing fires an Apache will take half a block hunting for it.
If the Palis do, will Israel expel its Arabs?
Or
Will international pressure tell Israel to deal with it?
Or
Will international pressure tell Israel to expel them "humanely", as the Swede wants?

[Visitor]

Oh, and you miss one point, which is that Israel should have the option on the table if (and only if) the International community feels that Hamas, with its platform of genocide at worst and expulsion/domination at best, is a government that deserves aid and contacts.
As the old saying goes, to a hammer everything looks like a nail. A military response to Palestinians has so far proven incapable of solving the impasse that has existed for decades.

I was very impressed with the thread entitled Were Jews and Arabs Destined to Hate Each Other?

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=1301

Interestingly, the conversation that followed the introductory statements ignored the possibility that conflict is the product of something other than inherent antipathy. It is certainly clear that a stick in the eye has typically been used rather than any form of accommodation. Or, how else should one interpret the construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank during what were supposed to be negotiations for creation of a Palestinian state on that same land?

I understand, of course, that for those on the Israeli side of the conflict who would never have been satisfied with anything less than the entirey to "greater" Israel completely free of Arabs, no accommodation is tolerable. With provacteurs from both sides roiling the water, it isn't easy to find common ground. That doesn't mean there is none, however.

My wish is that no human being should loaded onto a railroad car and deported from their homeland. But I don't excuse Israelis who've taken every opportunity to extend their control over land called home by persons now calling themselves Palestinians. Suggesting that Israel is "a land without people for a people without land," or to suggest there is no such thing as a Palestinians, hardly enhances communication.

Hamas refuses to accept the charade that was Olso and has resisted what they consider occupation of their homeland. I understand that in today's climate they qualify for the label of "terrorist." I know Israelis have been trying to get that label to stick for a long while now. If you really want a partner for peace, you need to consider the legitimate claims of "your partner" for security and economic justice. So far as I've been able to determine, we've yet to see a true partnership between Israelis and Palestinians.

[MGB8]

Another statement that shows an inherent anti Israeli bias:

I understand, of course, that for those on the Israeli side of the conflict who would never have been satisfied with anything less than the entirey to "greater" Israel completely free of Arabs, no accommodation is tolerable. With provacteurs from both sides roiling the water, it isn't easy to find common ground.

This is a blatant lie. Considering that Israel has offered the Pal Arabs 95% of the WB and gotten out of Gaza entirely... considering that Israel BANNED the party that said "cleanse the Arabs", while the Arabs ELECTED the party that says "cleanse the Jews"... well,

you have already lost all credibility to speak on this conflict.

You also haven't read the Hamas charter, apparently. Or have you? If so, what does it say about Israel? Do you know about Dar al-Harb, Dar al-Salam? The Grand Mufti of Jeruslam? The year the PLO was formed and its goals?

Do you understand that compromise means that the Arabs have to give up on some of their claims, and Israel give up on some of theirs? Do you understand that UN R 242 specifically REJECTED the idea that Israel should return all of the territories to Syria, Jordan and Egypt (there was no conception of Palestinian nationhood at the time.)

Do you know that Jordan, as late as 1986, more than 20 years after the founding of the PLO, only two years before the first intifadah, still wanted to regain the WB?

Apparently not.

Just another ignorant or Arabist.

[MGB8]

Oh, and you certainly don't seem to mind Jews being put on railroad cars when its from their homes, granted, in DISPUTED territory (territory with multiple claims on it, none of which are disposive under International law.)

What is the basis for the claim that Pal Arabs have sovereignty over every inch of the WB and Gaza? Why don't we start there.


My guess, though, is that this is just another person with a lot of opinions and not a lot of knowledge.

[MGB8]

Oh, one final thing. A military response to the Pal Arabs has only been tried for about 5 years, and has been VERY effective, much more effective than land concessions.

[Visitor]

Another statement that shows an inherent anti Israeli bias:


This is a blatant lie. Considering that Israel has offered the Pal Arabs 95% of the WB and gotten out of Gaza entirely... considering that Israel BANNED the party that said "cleanse the Arabs", while the Arabs ELECTED the party that says "cleanse the Jews"... well,

you have already lost all credibility to speak on this conflict...
We won't likely have much of a conversation since it is so clear you have all the answers... :rolleyes:

In the last five years, according to the Israeli organization Peace Now, there have been 50 settlements established in the West Bank, including 33 that have continuous, active construction programs. Incidentally, none have been removed during that period of time. I understand that capturing hilltops has been a time honored way of extending control in the region. I personally enjoyed very much Arthur Koestler's wonderful book written in the 1930's entitled Thieves in the Night.

Whatever is happening among the political parties, many in Israel remain committed to greater Israel. It may be they now are limited to dropping a few caravans on hilltops in the West Bank. But when you've already established settlements across the region, you hardly need to do much more to control it. You're aware of course, that the recently elected Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, in expressing his intention to remove some settlements from the West Bank repeated his determination to control of the Jordan Valley. No Israeli leader has ever said they were willing to relinquish control of borders even if a Palestinian state were to exist.

http://www.peacenow.org.il/data/SIP_STORAGE/files/6/1016.jpg

The grand 95% charade won't go very far with me either since there never was a real offer. (I loved the cartoon of a piece of Swiss cheese portraying the Israeli plan...:D) I understand, of course, that this is one of a hundred points of contention regarding the Oslo process. I'm rather impressed with the articles in the New York Review of Books on the subject of Camp David. You no doubt are familiar with them. Yet I do love the old saw that the Palestinians "never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

With regard to the success of Israel's military prowess over the last five years there may be some disagreement as well. Every story about a teenager shot in the head or of soldiers defecating on office equipment diminish the stature of the IDF. It is also difficult reconciling bulldozed homes, torn up olive trees and settlers spitting on Palestinians in the presence of soldiers as evidence of high morality or military efficacy.

Despite the fact I've long been an admirer of Israel, I'm one of those on the left who is unhappy with conditions at the moment. I'm likely closer to those in Israel and among the many Jew in the United States, who are critical of what we call the occupation and you surely call the disputed territories. You may disagree with the positions I articulate but please don't mistake me as a person unfamiliar with both the history of the region and the complexities of the issues involved. I'm very well informed. ;)

[MGB8]

In other words, you evade the questions. So, where I have all the answers, you have none.

Apparently you haven't read Dennis Ross's book, either, as the "swiss cheese board DOESN'T EXIST" its pal Arab propaganda.

Again, what we see is an inherent anti-Israeli bias.

Peace now is an ultra left group, barely worth listening to. Most of the "settlements" that are started up are started up on un-titled lands and are essentially just a few trailers, easily removed.

Their is a lefty soldier group that recounts what Israel soldiers have done, which, when I read through the stuff, was actually quite comforting. Yes, Israeli soldiers more often than they should are jack-asses. But true malice is few and far between, and many of the allegations of true malice get discredited. There are certainly terrible incidents, but those are the exceptions, not the rule. This compared to ruthless enemy bent on destroying Israel and mass murdering Jews. Of course, you call that "self-defense."

You have no credibility. They'll like you on Ummah.com, why don't you go over there. Or maybe get an ounce of intellectual honesty and do some homework and come here and have a real discussion.

If you are informed, it is mis-information. Again, you couldn't answer my questions -either because you lack the integrity or because you are unwilling to deal with facts that don't comport to your point of view.

Instead, you LIED, just as you LIED by accusations of "swisscheese boards".

http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm

Stop lying.

[MGB8]

Oh, you did notice the part in that article where it talks about Barak being willing to give up the Jordan valley, no?

In camp david offers, Israel would have kept some and had a temporary security presence.

Of course, the Pals can't compromise to a position where both parties jointly patrol the Jordan valley border. Why not? Because it would stop them from importing weapons to attack Israel and kill Jews.

[Visitor]

My favorite definition of Chutzpah tells the story of a man planning on having a barbecue who goes to the only neighbor on the block he HASN'T invited to the party to borrow charcoal briquettes. That definition fits well the circumstances in which the residents of Palestine found themselves as Zionists from Europe convinced Jews mostly from Eastern Europe that moving to what was once called Israel made sense. Unfortunately, the promise of an improved world for both settlers and residents proved illusory. You see the Jews from Eastern Europe weren't particularly interested in inviting local residents to participate in the party.

That local residents pushed back against the settlers is hardly surprising. The world they knew was being turned upside down as the wealth from generous Jews around the world helped to buy land from absentee Turkish landlords which was then held in the name of the Jewish people. One would think who owned the land wouldn't matter since there was always work to be done. But then the restrictions were put in place that forbade holders of land from hiring local residents.

Clearly, the farmers tending their olive groves and shepherders tending their sheep, were no match for the Zionist intelligensia whose grand ideas were supported by donors from around the world.

What I find remarkable in this story is that it is the Palestinian resistance to the juggernaut of Zionist expansionism you wish to place on trial here. I recognize that the first battle in an exchange of ideas is over how the story is told. Clearly, your narrative has no place in it for critical comments toward Israel's behavior over the decades. Your preference is to point fingers at the Palestinians.

Personally, I enjoy reading Livia Rokach's review of the diaries of Moshe Sharett and description of cabinet meetings in the mid-1950's when David Ben-Gurion, the lion of the desert, and Moshe Dayan crafted their strategy of provocation and revenge. I refer to it as pushing a stick in your opponent's eye and then clobbering him when he winces. I don't doubt that you've already discounted Israel's Sacred Terrorism as propaganda of the worst sort. Perhaps Livia Rokach, the daughter of the Minister of Interior in Sharett's cabinet when he was Prime Minister is one in a long line of self-hating Jews who tell stories they shouldn't. To me the story explains what I've witnessed in Israel and the occupied territories for the last forty years as homes are bull-dozed, olive trees are uprooted, sheep are slaughtered, Palestinians are spit upon by settlers as IDF soldiers stand to the side and laugh. That one finds rage among Palestinians, a rage to the point a young person would choose to strap on explosives and blow themselves up rather than live another day under occupation, should not be too surprising to anyone. It is not a mark of irrationality, but rather a mark of despair.

I know that Dennis Ross lays blame at the feet of Arafat for the failure of Oslo at Camp David, but I also know that others analyze the process and come to different conclusions. As one party said in 2003, Partisans of each side have produced "Oslo Autopsies," and as usual, each side supplies justification for their positions rather than enlightenment.

http://www.mideastweb.org/oslofailed.htm

I accept that your narrative works for you, but you'll have to accept my statement that your narrative doesn't trump my own, regardless of the nasty language you use to disparage my point of view.

[FOGOMAINS]

I think we should spend money building homes for the Palestinians in Greenland, spray their airspace with a sleeping drug and then move them quietly to their new homes. :D

Why should we pollute Greenland :D

The Sahara is big enough

[JaboLucius]

Originally Posted by Hebrew Swede
I think we should spend money building homes for the Palestinians in Greenland, spray their airspace with a sleeping drug and then move them quietly to their new homes.

Dare to dream... :D

[MGB8]

No, Visitor,

There is truth, and there is lies. The maps are accurate. The fact that Hamas hasn't renounced terror are accurate.

It is FACT that you have LIED in your above posts. Not "spoken from a different narrative" nor a "distinct perspective", but flat out written untruths.

It is also FACT that you failed to answer my questions, either about the history or what is occurring now, or even the SOFTBALL about the theoretical basis for absolute Pal Arab sovereignty claims to every inch of the WB and Gaza. At least the theory can indeed be painted as "narrative" or "perspective" - why claim x trumps claim y. But you couldn't even do that.

Instead you duck, dodge, and evade. Oh, yeah, and write untruths.

Oh, and Dennis Ross and Bill Clinton aren't exactly Israel partisans. But, of course, the Arabist propaganda machine has to make up some excuse, as opposed to just going with what Arafat said - first, that no absolute right of return and any territorial compromise would lead to him being killed (ie. the Pal Arabs can't compromise), and second, later he said that IT WAS A MISTAKE not to take the offer (and launch the pre-planned terror war - yes, also documented that it was planned well in advance) - obviously, if it was "swiss cheese", it would not have been a mistake, now, would it.

Only well after this statement did the liars and revisionists (who are more or less like Holocaust deniers - the history paints them or those whose cause they espouse badly so they pretend the history is different) with their new story... and of course, you jump on board.

[Visitor]

No, Visitor,

There is truth, and there is lies. The maps are accurate. The fact that Hamas hasn't renounced terror are accurate.

It is FACT that you have LIED in your above posts...

...Sontag's detailed, balanced and unprejudiced report in the prestigious newspaper should have been thought-provoking and won accolades. But it never had a chance. It was perceived as anti-Israeli because, in Sontag's own words, it dared challenge the "potent, simplistic narrative that has taken hold in Israel and to some extent in the United States. It says: Mr. Barak offered Mr. Arafat the moon at Camp David last summer. Mr. Arafat turned it down, and then `pushed the button' and chose the path of violence."

That narrative is immune to fact or proof because it has become a myth in the service of a cause and like all myths, once it has caught on, it becomes more real than reality itself. Israeli society needs the myth, because it is unifying and justifies all actions, clears the conscience, defines the enemy as bloodthirsty and allows society to cope with the tough reality of "no alternative."

The narrative blaming Yasser Arafat now joins a whole string of myths: the Tel Hai myth, the myth of the runaway refugees in 1948, the myth of the War of Independence as a defensive war that broke out because of an invasion by Arab armies, the myth of the few against the many, and the myth of the liberation of the homeland from the British boot - just to mention a few of the many myths that have been created here to deal with the reality that gave birth to many crises and second thoughts about the situation.

Myths are not illusions but a salad of real and legendary events aimed at creating an image that the society wants to show to the world and itself - and God help anyone who dares to doubt them. No wonder that nearly every learned analysis of the "situation" is based on the careful calculation of "the nearly 100 percent Barak offered Arafat, the breaking of the Jerusalem taboo, the Palestinians' stubborn insistence on the right of return that means the destruction of Israel and the terrorist attacks that are aimed at winning with blood what they failed to get through negotiations."

Anyone who tries to present a more complex and balanced view that doesn't clear the Palestinians but also criticizes Barak for his management and Clinton for his panic - and particularly criticizes the hubris of trying to "end the conflict" - is immediately branded an enemy, or "extreme leftist."

But the ramifications of the myth are far-reaching: It's not the settlements that are an obstacle to peace, because in Arafat's eyes there's no difference between Psagot and Netanya; it's not the occupation that is the root of the violence, but the murderous instincts buried in Arafat's genes; there's no partner for negotiations and the conflict is existential.

The trouble, of course, is that myths are inherently subjective for the society that creates them for its own needs, and that society's opponents create their own, contradictory myths, like mirror images. Therefore, there's no chance that third-party observers will be able to confront either side with objective facts. In such a binary situation, there is no place for a third party. If you don't buy the myth, you're against me, so I'll have to hire a better public relations firm to successfully sell you my self-image...

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=59399&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=YYou may call me a "liar" but I'm hardly alone in my judgments about what is happening in the Middle East region. Arafat was the Judas goat tethered by the Olso Accords which promised peace but resulted in tremendous expansion of Israeli claims to land in the West Bank. He proved a useful scapegoat largely because of his own incompetence as a leader of the Palestinian people. That of course is precisely why he was so appealing to the israelis. Now that one demon has been laid to rest, Israel has annointed Hamas.

You want me to play your game here, but frankly, I've no interest in having a conversation with someone so quick to attack. I've discerned during my brief visit to this site that regulars are inclined to attack anyone who raises even the most simple objection. I know enough about psychology to appreciate the more virulent the attack the less secure the person leveling it.

I've no interest in driving the Israeli Jews into the sea. But then I refuse to demonize the Palestinians who have themselves been victims of great injustice. And I know for a fact that I'm not alone in that belief. Your charges against me mean nothing to me. Having said that, I've read your post Understanding the Arabs... and them understanding us. While my position is much closer to that articulated by Sceptic05, I appreciate that you are not totally blind to the circumstances leading up to the present situation. But, honestly, I see no reason for having a conversation since our views are so far apart and you prefer attack to dialogue. This is your sand box, of course, so you can play nasty if you want. You'll understand my disinterest in playing the foil for your attacks.

[minusthejihad]

You may call me a "liar" but I'm hardly alone in my judgments
....
And I know for a fact that I'm not alone in that belief.

Great! For a minute I was worried that the Earth was actually round. Then I found four other idiots to agree with me. Now I'm vindicated in my beliefs! Flat Earth Forever!

[minusthejihad]

I saw a CNN poll that said the over 70% percent of those that voted believe the US government had something to do with 911, as in "controlled demolishions" that my old boy, the great political theorist and historian, Charlie Sheen talked about. Well, obviously, the more that believe it, the more true it is! Duh!

[MGB8]

I call you a liar because you lie, Visitor. For no other reason.

I pointed out untruths that you made above, and you have had no response to them.

Instead, you duck, dodge and evade. Change the subject.

Don't flatter yourself about my tone. My tone has nothing to do with security or insecurity. It has everything to do with my anger at those who without a shred of conciensce or honesty will lie to further their political agendas.

For example, you site the anti-zionist Meron Benvenisti, who now believes in a "one state solution" - ie. the destruction of Israel, Jews at the mercy of their neigbors whims once again, and Jews not getting a state of their own, unlike the Arabs with their 22, including the majority "Palestinian" Jordan, on 78% of the Palestine mandate.

Oh, and 48 was absolutely a defensive war, although certainly that's a simplification - but for at least Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the local Arabs, the goal was the destruction of Israel, anounced and attempted. Jordan is more complicated, the destruction of Israel was not a primary goal for it, but it would not have opposed it, either. And certainly there were ambitions on the Israeli side. Nevertheless, the basic truth remains.

You are right about one thing, visitor. There is no reason for continued discussion between us. Not because of views being far apart. That has nothing to do with it.

It has to do with you being unable to deal with facts. It appears to me that you are really nothing more than like a German who denies the Holocaust because it makes him feel bad about his history. When you run into facts that don't jive with your narrative, you ignore them.

That trait is what makes discussion with you absolutely a waste of time. When you want to deal in reality, when you are willing to do your homework, then come back.

[Tashah]

To me the story explains what I've witnessed in Israel and the occupied territories for the last forty years as homes are bull-dozed, olive trees are uprooted, sheep are slaughtered, Palestinians are spit upon by settlers as IDF soldiers stand to the side and laugh. That one finds rage among Palestinians, a rage to the point a young person would choose to strap on explosives and blow themselves up rather than live another day under occupation, should not be too surprising to anyone. It is not a mark of irrationality, but rather a mark of despair.

Arafat was the Judas goat tethered by the Olso Accords which promised peace but resulted in tremendous expansion of Israeli claims to land in the West Bank. He proved a useful scapegoat largely because of his own incompetence as a leader of the Palestinian people. That of course is precisely why he was so appealing to the israelis. Now that one demon has been laid to rest, Israel has annointed Hamas.

The quotes above are very reminiscent of Robert Fisk in this effort...

'The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East' - Robert Fisk
(Alfred A. Knopf / 2005 / 1107pp)

[MGB8]

Of course, Visitor has not actually witnessed any of that, much less over 40 years.

This is back to the lying I was referring to.

He doesn't understand that the Israeli military/Pal Arab interactions where actually fairly limited post 67, before the intifadas.

Instead he makes up a narrative of 40 years of constant oppression - a nice simply story instead of the complex story of national politics and various factions within Pal Arab society and Israel, too. Too bad the story isn't true.

[MGB8]

Thank you for pointing out the possible (likely?) spaming, though.

[CanDo]

I understand, of course, that for those on the Israeli side of the conflict who would never have been satisfied with anything less than the entirey to "greater" Israel completely free of Arabs, no accommodation is tolerable.

If you want a violent slum, filled with gunmen, violence, poverty, repression and ignorance, visit any Arab country. Who, in their right mind, would not want a "greater" Israel free from these destructive Arabs?

Arabs took over the beautiful, peaceful land of Gush Katif, and quickly turned it into a nightmare of violence and repression.

What is your choice, a world filled with violent, repressive cultures, or one of peace and brotherhood?

If you really want a partner for peace, you need to consider the legitimate claims of "your partner" for security and economic justice.

The only road to peace is the sending back of ALL so-called Palestinian Arabs, back to their countries of origin. After 60+ years of failed and violent Arab culture, the only possible future is one of 60+ more years of failed and violent Arab culture.

So far as I've been able to determine, we've yet to see a true partnership between Israelis and Palestinians.

You never will. As long as Palestinians love killing Christians and Jews more than they love their own children, there will never be a true partnership.

In the last five years, according to the Israeli organization Peace Now, there have been 50 settlements established in the West Bank, including 33 that have continuous, active construction programs.

Thank God for more Jewish settlements. Jewish communities are relatively peaceful and civilized. Palestinian communities are uncivilized, garbage filled dumps of violent gangs. What type of neighbors do you prefer, peaceful, educated, lawful ones, or violent, uneducated, hateful neighbors, constantly breeding terrorists and misery?

The ONLY solution to the Arab culture of hatred and violence towards all other races and religions, is to send all Arabs home from the West Bank and Gaza, creating a Greater Israel. It won't bring peace, but it will result in a more peaceful and stronger Israel, which would be a blessing and a benefit for the rest of the civilized world.

[Seraph]

As fun as the prospect of transferring all the Arabs to neighboring Arab states might seem to some people here, it will plunge the entire region into total war.

I urge people who consider all-out war a small matter to remember that over the passed five years of Intifada about one thousand Israelis have been killed, but during the last all-out war during just one month in 1973 OVER TWO THOUSAND Israelis were killed. So there is a small difference in proportions there. And that war was peanuts compared to any war fought with today's technology. Don't forget that this time the Arabs have the best western technology money can buy.

[CanDo]

As fun as the prospect of transferring all the Arabs to neighboring Arab states might seem to some people here, it will plunge the entire region into total war.

You might be right. Arabs either react with terrorism against civilians or all out war. Perhaps that is why most Europeans favor appeasement of Arab terrorism rather than confrontation.

I urge people who consider all-out war a small matter to remember that over the passed five years of Intifada about one thousand Israelis have been killed, but during the last all-out war during just one month in 1973 OVER TWO THOUSAND Israelis were killed. So there is a small difference in proportions there.

How far do you think that Europeans would go to avoid a war with moslems/Arabs? Would Europeans give up their freedom and culture to avoid war? How about if Al Qaeda, and the other moslem extremist groups, pledged not to attack European cities? Would Europeans sign a peace treaty with the moslem terrorist groups promising to convert from Christianity to Islam, and enslavement, in exchange for the moslem terrorist groups letting them exist in peace?

And that war was peanuts compared to any war fought with today's technology. Don't forget that this time the Arabs have the best western technology money can buy.

Sounds like the civilized world needs to strike first, against Iran and Syria, before Iran gets the technology to blackmail and threaten the entire civilized world. The only question is, Is the civilized world going to be able to count on Europe to stand up against the threat of moslem/Arab terrorism and world domination?

[MGB8]

Look, expulsion is not a realistic option. It could only come about as a result of another major war launched by the Arabs against Israel, or by a very successful terrorist attack (like the attempt on the refinery on Ashkelon which was thwarted).

Greater Israel was a nice dream, is a nice dream, but, in essence, it makes the Jewish position the same as the Arab one. "You must leave because we are right.... period."

People like Visitor here don't acknowledge the majority (Pal) Arab position, which is a very logical position, by the way:

1. Israel is a historic injustice committed on the Arabs of Palestine in 1918 (not 1948). While the Ottomans ruled with more or less local consent, the British did not, and the minute they took over they needed to respect the inherent sovereignty of the people residing in the mandate at the time. They drew the borders, which is ok, but they had no right to divide the land any more, nor to do anything against the majority wishes of the residents. Giving land to the Jews, even allowing them in, was clearly against the wishes of the majority of the residents. Therefore, the partition is illegitimate, Israel is illegitimate, and the presence of any post-1918 Jewish immigrant on OUR (Arab) LAND (regardless of legalisms like title and sovereignty - we are talking de-facto) is an act of aggression punishable by death - and this is a just punishment and a just cause.

Hence, terrorism is ok (because the presence of Israel and Israelis is prejudicing the Pal Arabs and an aggression, and thus every Israeli is a criminal aggressor until the Jews leave the region), the Holocaust is sad but not our (Arab) problem, and we (Arabs) don't really care about utilitarian arguments about Eastern Palestine (Jordan) or 99+ % of the Middle East. It was ours, the British took it away without right, and then they gave it to the Jews (and the Jewish Zionists colluded with the British to take it away.) Again, the demographic argument in 1948 is irrelevent, because very few of the Jews there were legitimate (present with local Arab permission).

2. Given that Israel is by its very nature illegitamte, any, even temporary, recognition of its legitimacy is a HUGE concession, and so to ask that Arabs compromise on anything else is ridiculous. Further, there is the UN guaranteed right of return for refugees in a war zone. Israel stopped them. Sure, they would not have been loyal to Israel, but so what. Why can Israel judge that on its own, they should have tried and seen it. Its not practical and it might be self-endangering, but that's not our problem, either.


Thus, an Arab "moderate" is one who espouses the long term destruction of Israel via demographic means (ie. right of return), as opposed to its elimination through war. That is "moderation." The idea of ensuring Israel's perpetual existance is laughable.


Given the Arab position, Israel, if it is to act in its own interest, has to protect itself accordingly. Part of that is having the option of "throwing them all out" on the table. That is what people like Visitor don't want to deal with. They have come to accept the Arab version of "justice" - the position I put forward above.

Thus any assertive action by Israel in its own position - that it was justly created in a sparesly populated land and needs to exist as the Jewish state; that Jews need their historical homeland plus one state where they rely on their army and defensible borders, not the whims of their neighbors around them, is rejected as irrelevant.

Everything is seen through the prism of the Arab narrative. And then the lies start coming.

Its the insecurity of the Arabist position that causes them to lie. Jews, Israelis, on the other hand, are confident in their position, so we can see and acknowledge the Arab position. And we recognize that war may be the only answer, if they are unwilling to abandon their position and we are unwilling to abandon ours. And that's ok.

[MGB8]

Lets add one thing... how the settlements fit into the majority Arab point of view.

"You've already stolen from us all this land (Israel proper)" and now you are looking to take more, or even to make a bargaining chip out of this land? This is preposterous! Its our land, get off. All the settlements are illegal and unfair - the prejudice us in an attempt to get control of our land.

You having to move the settlers isn't our problem. You are all invader colonialists and should move. Your security concerns are not our problems... first you get off our land, and then, maybe, we'll worry about your security. Its more than enough that we're willing to temporarily accept Israel's existance and put aside (at least for now) our claims to all of the Western part of the Palestine mandate."

All the arguments you get from the Arabs (like Sumud) or their supporters (like Visitor) stem from this. To them, from this point, any recognition of rightful Israeli existance/sovereignty is a form of great moderation. And any attacks against Israel's existence are inherently just - terrorism or no. Any Israeli attempts at self defense are inherently injust.

Thus, in the end, they are not really moderates. Just partisans, enemies, really, and they need to be treated as such.

[Seraph]

You might be right. Arabs either react with terrorism against civilians or all out war. Perhaps that is why most Europeans favor appeasement of Arab terrorism rather than confrontation.



How far do you think that Europeans would go to avoid a war with moslems/Arabs? Would Europeans give up their freedom and culture to avoid war? How about if Al Qaeda, and the other moslem extremist groups, pledged not to attack European cities? Would Europeans sign a peace treaty with the moslem terrorist groups promising to convert from Christianity to Islam, and enslavement, in exchange for the moslem terrorist groups letting them exist in peace?



Sounds like the civilized world needs to strike first, against Iran and Syria, before Iran gets the technology to blackmail and threaten the entire civilized world. The only question is, Is the civilized world going to be able to count on Europe to stand up against the threat of moslem/Arab terrorism and world domination?

I agree. Europeans throughout the 20th century (and now in this young century as well) have chosen appeasement whenever they were threatened. Israel isn't like that. However, Israel is not suicidal either. It's not going to start a war with all of its neighbors just because a few maniacs want to expel all the Arabs from Israel.

Expelling people from illegal settlements on land which was never annexed by Israel is not the same as expelling Arab Israelis from their homes inside Israel. This is a legal matter. Israel still believes in upholding the law.

[MGB8]

The Settlements aren't illegal. That's one major issue, and Israel cannot concede it. They simply are not illegal under international law - regardless of various non-binding pronouncements. The land is disputed and if Israelis want to go live there, or even if Israel wants to build, it has the right (provided that they don't mess with private titles or compensate people if they do have to do so).

The settlements built post Oslo are illegal in that they are in violation of the Oslo accords - however, frankly, the Arabs never kept one of their commitments. Not that two wrongs make a right, but, the legal and moral force of Oslo is really questionable.

Now, there are unauthorized outposts, which are illegal, but that is a different matter.

Regardless - the option needs to be on the table. When faced with an opponent with an extreme position, you need to have extreme options at minimum visible and at least somewhat credible to the adversary.

[minusthejihad]

As fun as the prospect of transferring all the Arabs to neighboring Arab states might seem to some people here, it will plunge the entire region into total war.

I urge people who consider all-out war a small matter to remember that over the passed five years of Intifada about one thousand Israelis have been killed, but during the last all-out war during just one month in 1973 OVER TWO THOUSAND Israelis were killed. So there is a small difference in proportions there.

What's it to you? They are not your people, so why should you worry? Skip the humanist mumbo jumbo and give us a real answer.

Don't forget that this time the Arabs have the best western technology money can buy.

Yeah, but they still have the same intellect, or lack thereof. I'm not a religious man, but its no coincidence that the Israelis come out on top in each war, nu?

[Seraph]

What's it to you? They are not your people, so why should you worry? Skip the humanist mumbo jumbo and give us a real answer.



Yeah, but they still have the same intellect, or lack thereof. I'm not a religious man, but its no coincidence that the Israelis come out on top in each war, nu?

Oh, you've mistaken me for a European. My bad. I do move around a lot, but I'm an Israeli, so the lives of Israelis matter to me a great deal. And since I'm a reservist in the IDF an all-out war would affect me personally. How about you?

As for what you were saying about Arabs being stupid and Israel always coming out on top, that sounds like mumbo jumbo to me. One of the reasons Israel won all the previous wars was that it didn't underestimate its enemies or listened to mumbo jumbo like that. So you'll forgive me if I prefer to leave decisions about going to war to people like Olmert and Mofaz who actually know what they're talking about.

[CanDo]

Greater Israel was a nice dream, is a nice dream, but, in essence, it makes the Jewish position the same as the Arab one. "You must leave because we are right.... period."

On the contrary. If the Palestinian-Arabs would act like evolved, civilized humans, Israelis and Palestinian-Arabs could coexist in peace. Unfortunately It will take thousands of years for Palestinian-Arabs to evolve into rational, peaceful humans. There is no way that Israel will survive thousands more years of Palestinian-Arab hostility.

A civilized, peaceful Palestinian-Arab State is an impossibility. It will never happen. If Israel is to survive and have any hopes of peace, ALL Palestinian-Arabs must be sent back to their home countries, and a greater Israel created.

Creating a Palestinian-Arab State would be a horrendous error. It would reward racism, religious intolerance, brutality and barbarism. The punishment for decades of Palestinian-Arabs acting like vicious animals, should be to send all of them back to their home countries where they would be forced to live in backward, failed Arab dictatorships.

[andrew r]

On the contrary. If the Palestinian-Arabs would act like evolved, civilized humans, Israelis and Palestinian-Arabs could coexist in peace.

CanDo is totally right. If you need an example of the depths to which Palestinians have sunk into savagery, just read this:
http://www.redress.btinternet.co.uk/treinhart6.htm

Okay, that was a sarcastic agreement, in case you can't tell. I've been reading this board for over 1 1/2 years and never planned to say anything, but I have a *inappropriate* for whoever deleted ALL of Sumud's posts.

[MGB8]

For every one story of peaceful protest there are 10,000 images of children wearing fake bomb-belts and carrying fake machine guns and bazookas while wearing the hamas flag.

Or video of dead people scrambling back up onto strechers after an alleged massacre.

Or museum exhibits glorifying the sbarro attack or the WTC bombings, after many Pal Arabs danced in the streets at these mass murders.

No doubt, there is suffering in this conflict. Nevertheless, the checkpoints and walls wouldn't exist if the Pal Arabs hadn't decided, in 2001, to launch a pre-planned war as a response to the Camp David negotiations (and yes, the pre-planned nature is documented).

[Mira]

CanDo is totally right. If you need an example of the depths to which Palestinians have sunk into savagery, just read this:
http://www.redress.btinternet.co.uk/treinhart6.htm

Okay, that was a sarcastic agreement, in case you can't tell. I've been reading this board for over 1 1/2 years and never planned to say anything, but I have a *inappropriate* for whoever deleted ALL of Sumud's posts.


When people talk about land over the 67 line being consumed by Israel, I want to know more about that land other than how many people live there or the particular history of violence coming from a nearby village. I want to know more about the topography and whether the land is indeed needed for Israeli security. Unfortunetly, it's difficult to make that kind of assessment without physically being there or having detailed maps. All I could find on Biddu is the following:

...The most obvious is Beth-horon ridge route which can be seen in its entirety to the northwest. The Arab city of Biddu to the southwest controls two ridge routes, one which descends to the Aijalon Valley via el-Qubeiba and another which follows a level path to Kiriath-jearim before descending to the Shephelah.

Again, biblical events flood the mind. One of these best summarizes this western view from Nebi Samwil: Solomon’s worship at the ‘high place of Gibeon,’ perhaps at the very site at which we stand. His view from here would have helped him understand the importance of fortifying Upper and Lower Beth-horon, Baalath (Kiriath-jearim) and Gezer (1 Kgs 3:3-9; 9:17; 2 Chron 8:5). He easily could have turned to the southeast toward Jerusalem and seen that the security of his capital was closely linked to the Central Benjamin Plateau and sites guarding these ridge routes to the Aijalon Valley.http://www.juc.edu/pdf/study_guide.pdf

[Rory Blackhand]

I believe the Israeli people do want disengagement, but I do not believe for a minute that the majority want to disengage by giving land away. I think there should be a referendum to determine the true will of the people. I think the fighting will continue until all the Arab countries come to understand that Israel has won the war. By giving land away to appease the terrorists Israel is only inviting future disaster.

[rhodescholar]

As the old saying goes, to a hammer everything looks like a nail. A military response to Palestinians has so far proven incapable of solving the impasse that has existed for decades.

I was very impressed with the thread entitled Were Jews and Arabs Destined to Hate Each Other?

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=1301

Interestingly, the conversation that followed the introductory statements ignored the possibility that conflict is the product of something other than inherent antipathy. It is certainly clear that a stick in the eye has typically been used rather than any form of accommodation. Or, how else should one interpret the construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank during what were supposed to be negotiations for creation of a Palestinian state on that same land?

I understand, of course, that for those on the Israeli side of the conflict who would never have been satisfied with anything less than the entirey to "greater" Israel completely free of Arabs, no accommodation is tolerable. With provacteurs from both sides roiling the water, it isn't easy to find common ground. That doesn't mean there is none, however.

My wish is that no human being should loaded onto a railroad car and deported from their homeland. But I don't excuse Israelis who've taken every opportunity to extend their control over land called home by persons now calling themselves Palestinians. Suggesting that Israel is "a land without people for a people without land," or to suggest there is no such thing as a Palestinians, hardly enhances communication.

Hamas refuses to accept the charade that was Olso and has resisted what they consider occupation of their homeland. I understand that in today's climate they qualify for the label of "terrorist." I know Israelis have been trying to get that label to stick for a long while now. If you really want a partner for peace, you need to consider the legitimate claims of "your partner" for security and economic justice. So far as I've been able to determine, we've yet to see a true partnership between Israelis and Palestinians.

I would like to see a middle ground, where the arabs have their happy little homes in the WB/Gaza, and leaving the jews alone, but the outside powers, which a clueless person like you fails to ever mention of course, because you are so fraught with college-dorm room level knowledge made obvious through your infantile comments, wont allow for it.

As long as the iranian dictatorship and syrian dictatorship exist, the conflict will never, ever end.

Now be quiet and go back to your berkeley college student sit-in and let the adults go back to their conversation.

[rhodescholar]

Whatever is happening among the political parties, many in Israel remain committed to greater Israel.

Start addressing the questions posed to you, or you will land in my inbox or just get banned outright. Israel exited the Gaza strip entirely.

The grand 95% charade won't go very far with me either since there never was a real offer.

I guess you never read Bill Clinton's book describing the situation PRECISELY. Oh yeah, you didnt need to since you were IN the white house alongside him.

I'm rather impressed with the articles in the New York Review of Books on the subject of Camp David.

Which both Clinton AND others debunked. But why quibble with facts, when you can just try to lie your way through life?

This isnt the Berkeley student center, you cant get away with lines like that here.

With regard to the success of Israel's military prowess over the last five years there may be some disagreement as well.

Your funny, but not intentionally so.

How many suicide bombings occurred in 2005 compared to 2002? Why do you think Hamas stopped them? Because their leaders were getting killed, and they wanted to stop their destruction, which would have occurred had israel continued it policy of targeting killings of terrorists, which garbage like you abhor.

Despite the fact I've long been an admirer of Israel,

Dont even waste our time with a line like this. Are you kidding me? With people like you "supporting" israel, who needs enemies?

You may disagree with the positions I articulate but please don't mistake me as a person unfamiliar with both the history of the region and the complexities of the issues involved. I'm very well informed.

Compared to what, a 3rd grader in a pakistani madrassa?

You couldnt explain your way out of tissue paper, and the fact that you sidestep point after point thrown at you is proof you are here to troll.

[MGB8]

I believe the Israeli people do want disengagement, but I do not believe for a minute that the majority want to disengage by giving land away. I think there should be a referendum to determine the true will of the people. I think the fighting will continue until all the Arab countries come to understand that Israel has won the war. By giving land away to appease the terrorists Israel is only inviting future disaster.

I agree with the idea of a referendum, for the sake of internal peace, if nothing else, and also with a 60% threshold. That said, at the same time Israel also needs to crack down on unauthorized outposts.

[Rory Blackhand]

Does anyone know if a serious study has been done on the transfering of the hostile population? Something that can be accessed and read that would cover the logistics of how it would be done, the economic impact of likely reprecussions and boycotts, and the military aspect of short and long term defense?

If a realistic and well thought out plan could be developed and presented to the Israeli public the idea might be more attractive. Jordan was part of Palestine and it was arbitrarily closed to Jewish settlement for a variety of reasons, one of which was to create a reserve for displaced Arabs.

No doubt there would be massive backlash on the world stage at first, but a good PR campaign to go along with the expulsion would have to go hand in hand. For that to succeed the premise of the action would have to be moraly and legaly solid. And from everything I know of the situation it is. Other examples to site are Turkey/Greece and India/Pakistan.

Any suggestions? Or should I be calling for every Israeli scientist to work day and night to discover a viable alternative to fossil fuels for the country's salvation so that a plan like this has a chance of being endorsed?

[Tashah]

Jordan was part of Palestine and it was arbitrarily closed to Jewish settlement for a variety of reasons, one of which was to create a reserve for displaced Arabs.
Actually, Palestine was a portion of the territory of Transjordan. The peace treaty co-signed by Israel and Jordan in 1994 is deliniated in four bound volumns and numerous appendices which deal with water rights, salt domes, etc. There were also large detailed maps included in the treaty documentation. Interesting enough, the 'West Bank' is not labeled as such on these maps. Where Jordan ends... the land of Israel begins.

[MGB8]

Nope. First it was the Palestine mandate, renamed to "Palestine" (West of the River) and Transjordan (East of the river).

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_transjordan.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine

[Tashah]

Nope. First it was the Palestine mandate, renamed to "Palestine" (West of the River) and Transjordan (East of the river).

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_transjordan.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine
Correct. My bad. :eek:

[Rory Blackhand]

Tashah,

You may have been refering to the fact that Jordan captured an unallocated part of the Palestinian Mandate territory in 1948? And this is the land that is now being considered to become a future Palestine. A peace treaty was signed by Israel and East Palestine (Jordan), which as you say, deliniated the border.

How it got from captured Jordanian land to occupied Palestine is a mystery to me?

What is needed is a massive public awareness program clarifying that Jordan is part of Palestine. It is the Arab part of Palestine and another Arab nation formed on land set aside for the Jewish homeland is both redundent and unneccesary.

Further, the land that was captured was Judea and Samaria. I refuse to recognize or refer to it as Palestine or the Jewish sanitized label of West Bank just because many have been duped into believing the fable that this is all the Arabs want.

[nbarzelay]

I've been toiling with this book I've been trying to find about a famous American author who went to on a 'holy land' (as he termed it) pilgrimage. This around the 1850's, but not completely sure. This author describes, in detail, how Jerusalem was the only area primarily populated and areas such as Haifa and some small portions in Judea and Samaria and north in Safed were sparcely populated by Jews and Arabs. The rest of Israel or soon to be a re-established Israel, was very bare and undeveloped.

This would help to great effect in the argument that the Ottomans (both Malamuks and Saluks) did jack-all in developing the area of what is now Israel, Judea and Samaria and would pull the argument out from beneath these Palestinian Arabs who claim that something was really 'stolen' from them. Although there are many population statistics from around the 1870's onwards, these somewhat contradict eachother and do not form such a strong case for either side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I do know from previous readings that the brunt of Palestinians and the self-proclaimed descendents are by majority new migrants themselves from surrounding Syria, Lebanon, and the Transjordan. These migrant workers came primarily to work for the Jews since the large influx of European Jews, starting from the first aliyah via Russia in the 1910's via the hep/fundage of the Roothchilds'.

What I really need is this 'outsider' account of the 'holy land' and any additional first-hand accounts of this area prior to the Arabs/Muslims taking interest in Israel, again, after the British came in.

Can anybody help?

[Mediocrates]

Mark Twain 'Innocents Abroad' perhaps? though its from 1902.

[Rory Blackhand]

Yes, below is a cut and paste from here (http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/palestine.html)

The most popular quote on the desolation of the Land is from Mark Twain's THE INNOCENTS ABROAD (1867), "Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes. Over it broods the spell of a curse that has withered its fields and fettered its energies....Palestine is desolate and unlovely.... It is a hopeless, dreary, heartbroken land."

Try this book as well The New Pilgrim's Progress (1869)

There are some rude mills here which are turned by the stream. A ride of half an hour more brought us to the ruins of the ancient city of Cæsarea, once a city of two hundred thousand inhabitants, and the Roman capital of Palestine, but now entirely deserted.

As the sun was setting we gazed upon the desolate harbor, once filled with ships, and looked over the sea in vain for a single sail. In this once crowded mart, filled with the din of traffic, there was the silence of the desert. After our dinner we gathered in our tent as usual to talk over the incidents of the day, or the history of the locality.

Yet it was sad, as I laid upon my couch at night, to listen to the moaning of the waves and to think of the desolation around us.

- by B. W. Johnson, in Young Folks in Bible Lands: Chapter IV, 1892

Then we entered the hill district, and our path lay through the clattering bed of an ancient stream, whose brawling waters have rolled away into the past, along with the fierce and turbulent race who once inhabited these savage hills. There may have been cultivation here two thousand years ago. The mountains, or huge stony mounds environing this rough path, have level ridges all the way up to their summits; on these parallel ledges there is still some verdure and soil: when water flowed here, and the country was thronged with that extraordinary population, which, according to the Sacred Histories, was crowded into the region, these mountain steps may have been gardens and vineyards, such as we see now thriving along the hills of the Rhine. Now the district is quite deserted, and you ride among what seem to be so many petrified waterfalls. We saw no animals moving among the stony brakes; scarcely even a dozen little birds in the whole course of the ride.

- by William Thackeray in From Jaffa To Jerusalem, 1844

[nbarzelay]

Thanks for the responses guys.

Definitely makes you wonder about baseless conjecture of the pal arabs regarding the level of development in Israel. That they were kicked out of towns and villages numbering in the tens of thousands and that they managed to become immune in the malaria infested swampy areas north of Hadera and Netanya, e.g. Binyamina, Pardes Chana, Zichron Yaakov, etc. Hence the eucalyptus trees that the Jews planted to drain these swamps.

For some strange reason the writings of Mark Twain and the like reminded me of some Starwars episode of elusive desert dwelling scavengers. I know, geekey, actually had to look up the names since I have no background info on it. Jawas I think they are called. Anyways, they are the only ones that I see fit a possible description of how the pals managed to elude Mark Twains and other authors in their descriptions of the holy land.

What I found that is bloody hilarious, was another description of a species thanks to Wikipedia. Check it out and see how it applies.
:D

Weequay

The Weequay are a low-intelligence species that can be found throughout the galaxy. They are a race of humanoid creatures that hail from the planet Sriluur, a harsh desert planet lending to the species' tanned skin tone and rough, sandy, wrinkled skin. Their eyes are dark and slightly recessed into their skull; their hair tied into at least one long braid — a staple characteristic and religious tradition.

They are a laconic people, with traditions rooted deeply in their religious beliefs. Much of their culture is structured around the worship of a pantheon of gods, primarily the God of the Moon, Quay. Their cities are built around a temple, known as a thal.

[The Baron]

As there are around 1 billion muslims and 20 millions of jews, I think there is a somewhat obvious conclusion downthere

That some kind of REAL agreement will have to be reached someday (and not an agreement like Israel surrender)

[jeans_moha]

thanks

[Truth789]

Yeah I say just expell the Arabs instead.

Put them on buses to Jordan.

[CoinToss]

1 bank=1 people then peace

arabs want both of the banks. they are warmongers

[Truth789]

honestly, screw the Arabs. Why are we so nice?

[Truth789]

Well we are not really that nice to them but screw them. They should go back to Jordan and the other countries and the World should support us. It shouldn't even be wishful thinking. ;)