Only War Can Bring Peace

[ibrodsky]

The Bush administration has swallowed the Clinton administration's misguided view: that peace can only be achieved by committees.

Today Nabil Shaath was interviewed on Fox News. He was quite clear: the PA will never give up on the "right of return" to within Israel for large numbers of Palestinians. It should be obvious to anyone but the most naive that the main goal of the PA is not a state of their own living next to Israel, but a larger Arab population inside Israel. If Israel were to agree to such a thing, it would be an irreversible move towards more terrorism and ultimately the dismantling of Israel.

Clearly, these people have not given up on destroying Israel, and they are willing (as they have publicly declared) to spend 100 years if needed to make it happen.

This is why even the current military operation is insufficient. Israel must eliminate Arafat and all Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, and Al Aqsa Brigades leaders. Israel must deal the Palestinians a truly "crushing" blow. The choice for Palestinians must between complete destruction and a compromise with Israel -- a compromise that includes acceptance of no "right of return" to within Israel and not the '67 cease fire line but defensible borders for Israel.

Israel must defeat the PA just as the U.S. defeated Japan and Nazi Germany.

[Vic]

ibrodsky, in WWII the Allies always stressed that they were fighting not against the Germans or Japanese as a people, even though they caused a high civilian death toll without much hesitation or remorse, but against their respective governments. Indeed they supported the German opposition and even sometimes took pains to "reeducate" the captured soldiers in prison camps. Maybe it would be useful to take care to clarify the difference between "the Palestinians" and the PA, Hamas etc.? The intention to deal "a crushing blow" to the Palestinians does bring Israel linguistically close to an accusation of genocidal designs, dealing the same blow to the PA and other terror organisations, whether internationally recognized as such or not, is a perfectly legitimate goal.

[ibrodsky]

Of course I am saying that Israel must crush its Palestinian enemies -- not those Palestinians truly willing to live in peace.

But by narrowing it down to the PA, Hamas, et. al. you are ignoring the fact that the PA has created a terrorist infrastructure that extends from the PA to the schools to the mosques and to the media. Plus, you ignoring poll after poll that show a majority of Palestinians supporting terrorism.

To wit, the Palestinians have made terrorism the centerpiece of their culture. They glorify terrorists, celebrate terrorist acts, and breed terrorists. The good Palestinians, for whatever reason, have done nothing to stop terrorism.

Therefore, sooner or later Israel is going to have to utterly crush the society and economy whose main "product" is terrorism.

The U.S. did not say "We must send ground troops into Germany and Japan so that we can be sure of only killing the most determined and ideologically motivated enemies." The U.S. understood that German and Japanese societies supported or at least acquiesced to mass murder, and the U.S. (therefore) bombed them into submission.

It is clear from watching the likes of Nabil Shaath that every statement about "peace" from the PA is a ruse. They have built a terrorist culture. They "condemn" terrorism knowing they must verbally condemn it, but materially they do everything they can to support it.

Actually, I think they have stolen a lesson from Maimonides' book. Maimonides advised Jews to recite sentences dictated by their Muslim tormentors so that they could continue living. Today, Palestinian leaders recite words of condemnation for terrorist attacks because they must, but in their hearts they continue to support those attacks. Once you have embraced the evil of killing innocent civilians, it is very easy to lie.

Sorry, but Israel is going to have to crush them and then hand pick Palestinians leaders truly interested in living in peace. It's going to take a new generation of Palestinians brought up in schools and mosques and with media that teach Western values rather than Islamist fascism.

[DanStrat]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ibrodsky
ibrodsky your post #3 is pretty much right on target and your assessment that "Israel must defeat the PA just as the U.S. defeated Japan and Nazi Germany" is also pretty much right on target. Unfortunately it is sometimes necessary to recognize that evil does exist in the world and war is sometimes necessary to bring about peace and ensure that peace thrives and that freedom and democratization is furthered throughout the world.

I would add that not only Israel is looking at the prospect and responsibility of eradicating the will to fight/continue to use terrorist tactics and murder innocent civilians etc. All nations that embrace democracy, and freedom will have to work together to crush not only the terrorist organizations, but also the nation states that harbor and support these cowards. These dictatorships must be eradicated and replaced with governments that will move these countries toward democratization. Otherwise you are correct and quite possibly underestimating that this battle will proceed for another 100 years, hasn’t it been going on since Mohammad was riding around in the desert with his pack of thieves and killers spreading the peacefulness of Islam?

[martinw718]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
The Bush administration has swallowed the Clinton administration's misguided view: that peace can only be achieved by committees.

Today Nabil Shaath was interviewed on Fox News. He was quite clear: the PA will never give up on the "right of return" to within Israel for large numbers of Palestinians. It should be obvious to anyone but the most naive that the main goal of the PA is not a state of their own living next to Israel, but a larger Arab population inside Israel. If Israel were to agree to such a thing, it would be an irreversible move towards more terrorism and ultimately the dismantling of Israel.

Clearly, these people have not given up on destroying Israel, and they are willing (as they have publicly declared) to spend 100 years if needed to make it happen.

This is why even the current military operation is insufficient. Israel must eliminate Arafat and all Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, and Al Aqsa Brigades leaders. Israel must deal the Palestinians a truly "crushing" blow. The choice for Palestinians must between complete destruction and a compromise with Israel -- a compromise that includes acceptance of no "right of return" to within Israel and not the '67 cease fire line but defensible borders for Israel.

Israel must defeat the PA just as the U.S. defeated Japan and Nazi Germany.

Absolutely!

Netanyahu keeps pointing out that strength is respected far more than appeasement.

Every time Israel has given the Arabs something, the Arabs have used it to attack Israel. Always.

Another thing Netanyahu keeps pointing out -- and I hope people are finally starting to get it -- is that once you eliminate the leadership of the threat, the threat almost always disappears.

His examples were hardly isolated: German society went back to Democracy as soon as the Nazis were defeated.
Once Japan was defeated the whole Japanese nationalism mania fizzled out.

We keep hearing that Israel is "just breeding more terrorism." But history does not back up the notion that force breeds force. Even Israel's own history does not back up that notion. I remember clearly how Oslo opened the door for a new wave of terrorism.

People who spout this garbage about Israel just breeding more terrorism remind me of the clowns who say that you need not secure your home because "they'll get in if they really want to."

[Dyeus]

land for peace was always BS, and it will be BS there is no need for Israel to even CONSIDER peace (yes I am AGAINST peace aslong as we need to give up Jerusalem) they could of had it all and they refused and I dont see ANY reason why we should bow for hatred and terrorism, WE have the RIGHT to defend ourselves and OUR PEOPLE, even better it is not a right but our DUTY to do so, EVERYWHERE in the world Jews get terroresized by people (NOT only muslims) and they are affraid to go to the Synagoge, we should stand up for eachother instead of crawling away for we have the right to live aswell

[drelan]

Comparing the PA to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan seems like somewhat of a falicy to me. I beleive that it is paradoxical to say that war brings peace, and I do not agree that the actions of the Israeli military are now bringing peace to anyone, including Israel itself.

I realize that I may not see things from your perspective as I live abroad, but then perhaps you can explain to me how your actions are bringing peace to anyone. If I am correct, Jews were given a homeland partially in response to the halocaust in WWII. There was rampant anti-semitism prior to WWII, but now everyone agree's that the genocide preformed by Nazi Germany was horrific. Any type of hate in this measure is horrific, and subsequently, any type of hate that leads to the oppression and near anialation of a nation is horrific. I do not support palestinian suicide bombers, but neither do I support the military occupation and oppression of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

However, I feel that in this situation Israel (together with its ally, the United States of America) must take the first step to bring about a peace. And this is not through war. War is such a superficial, and temporary resolution to the promlems nations face today.

Please let me know how much you disagree with me.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by drelan
Comparing the PA to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan seems like somewhat of a falicy to me. I beleive that it is paradoxical to say that war brings peace, and I do not agree that the actions of the Israeli military are now bringing peace to anyone, including Israel itself.

I realize that I may not see things from your perspective as I live abroad, but then perhaps you can explain to me how your actions are bringing peace to anyone. If I am correct, Jews were given a homeland partially in response to the halocaust in WWII. There was rampant anti-semitism prior to WWII, but now everyone agree's that the genocide preformed by Nazi Germany was horrific. Any type of hate in this measure is horrific, and subsequently, any type of hate that leads to the oppression and near anialation of a nation is horrific. I do not support palestinian suicide bombers, but neither do I support the military occupation and oppression of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

However, I feel that in this situation Israel (together with its ally, the United States of America) must take the first step to bring about a peace. And this is not through war. War is such a superficial, and temporary resolution to the promlems nations face today.

Please let me know how much you disagree with me.

I don’t suppose that you believe that leaving weeds in the garden generate more weeds.

Actually you’re quite wrong when you suggest that the actions of the IDF worsen the situation in the Middle East. The IDF is performing the job that the PA should have done years ago. The Radical Islamic terrorists in the WB and GS are gradually being eliminated and their bomb factories are being destroyed.

Israel is moving slowly in the right direction despite the fact that they are restrained somewhat by the actions of the EU.

Talk is cheap and I’m certain that if you were at the receiving end of suicidal maniacs you’d most certainly demand that your government would take some sort of action. I’m certain that I would hear your cry for help circulating the globe.

[drelan]

Yes, but why are the weeds there? Israeli's must not simply strike in retaliation to suicide bombings, but address the root cause to maintain their own security, and that of the Palestinians. But that leaves a question: What are the root causes of "terrorism"?

There is not one victim here, but two. Not one offender, but two. If Palestinian Terrorists are to be labeled "weeds" as you say, then the IDF should be labeled as a very big weed, being fed constantly by the fertilizer of the US.

I do not think that there is such a simple solution to this problem. "The Radical Islamic terrorists in the WB and GS are gradually being eliminated and their bomb factories are being destroyed." This will not end the conflict, but IMO inflame more terrorist sentiment towards Israel.

Every person killed must be thought of as human, and it is only when we start to value the "enemy" as we value our own, it is only then that we will start to see a solution, and begin to notice the crimes of both sides.

As a conclusion, I do not agree that all talk is cheap. Please tell me what else I can do now then talk. Please tell me and I will gladly listen.

[elke]

Originally posted by drelan
Yes, but why are the weeds there? Israeli's must not simply strike in retaliation to suicide bombings, but address the root cause to maintain their own security, and that of the Palestinians. But that leaves a question: What are the root causes of "terrorism"?


Maybe so, but wouldn't you first have to pull out the weeds in your garden, before worrying why they sprung up in the first place? If you don't pull them out, they'll kill all your flowers/tomatoes/what have you! This is the stage we are at right now: the current situation is such that Israel needs to take care of it NOW! There is no time to worry about the whys and wherefores. At some point - sure! The whole world will have to sit down and think about how to combat poverty, hopelessness, sickness, etc.

[danholo]

Gardening sure is fun... never done that though. :)

[ibrodsky]

Part of the Big Lie is that fighting terrorism only creates more terrorists.

What breeds terrorists? When a group sees that terrorist attacks are successful and that the perpetrators get away with those acts.

The U.S. did not create terrorists by bombing Afghanistan and driving the Taliban from power. Terrorists were already ensconced in Afghanistan. What created terrorists was seeing the first WTC bombing, the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, and the USS Cole bombing--while the U.S. seemed indifferent or impotant. That is what creates terrorists.

No one, not even Islamist fanatics, is eager to join a losing cause.

What will stop terrorists? The only way to stop them is to methodically fight and defeat both the terrorists and the states that support them.

To win the war on terrorism, the U.S. must thoroughly defeat Al Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Iraq, Syria, and Iran. These are the main culprits, though not the only ones. Defeating them will discourage others.

[Disraeli]

Only War Can Bring Peace


You are I fear sadly mistaken.
I come from Ireland and I can attest that compromise is the only way forward for peace.

So long as the occupation continues Israel will always be subject to attacks, so long as Israeli settlement continues Israel will always live under threat.

This is fact and blindly burying your head in the sand and extolling some mantra about how "terrorism will be vanquished" with military force is counter productive.

Terrorism has no capital you can invade, no leader to kill, because the more cities you invade and leaders you kill the more people you create who want to be "terrorists".

Thus military action is not in fact in the long term interests of an average Israeli, not to mention the millions of Palestinian people who have done "nothing" for the most part to deserve retribution for attacks perpetrated against Israel.

Hamas does not bomb Israel in the name of the Palestinian Authority, the IDF does occupy Palestine in the name of the Israeli state, thus so long as this disproportion exists between the two sides, you will have a war of redress in perpetuity.

As I have said the only amicable resolution to this terrible war between the two peoples in question is in fact an internationally mediated agreement.

Contrary to popular belief, the entire world is not in fact a seething mass of anti-semitism and the entire world does not want to see the "destruction" of Israel.

What I want to see is an end to the occupation, unconditionally.
An end to Israeli settlements unconditionally.
A Palestinian state.
An Israeli state where people do not have to fear for their lives, unconditionally.

Once you start equating the four listed points with each other, you place pre-conditions that obscure the real goal, which has to be peace, not some grandeous mantra about the virtues of war.

You cannot enact some grand troop movement and destroy terrorism, how can you? There is no official line, when some random person can just decide to attack civilians, troops cannot stop that only resolving the grievances that bring about the conflict to begin with can.

Arguably the United States support of Israel was a contributary factor to the bombings on Sepetmber 11th 2001.
Thus for the sake of Israeli security, Palestinian human rights and the American's (Israeli's ally) right to live in peace the occupation and annexation of Palestinian terrorities must stop now and a UN mediated agreement must be implemented.

Regards.
Bryan.

[Disraeli]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Part of the Big Lie is that fighting terrorism only creates more terrorists.

What breeds terrorists? When a group sees that terrorist attacks are successful and that the perpetrators get away with those acts.


Or perhaps there is an actual grievance?

How is it a big lie that fighting "terrorism" breeds more terrorism? Do you have any proof of that or is it just propaganda?

Answer me one simple question.

Do you believe Israel is justified in making settlements on Palestinian terroritory and citing resistance to occupation and annexation of said terrority as terrorism?

Do you honestly believe that god wants Israel to have that land? Or is there some other way you rationalise the brutal occupation and annexation of Palestine? Don't you care that the more you occupy, settle, asassinate 'terrorists' and utterly ignore the UN that you will breed ever more terrorists?

A man walking down the road to buy milk doesn't just up and decided to blow himself and some people on a bus to bits, he has to have a reason, and working on the premis that the occupation is essentially unjust I propose that the occupation is in fact the root cause of terrorism?

So what you are saying that somehow that proposition is a big lie?
I think not.

[searrard]

First of all I am new to these boards, my intrest in current affairs and world history got me here...and this caught my eye


Originally posted by ibrodsky
Part of the Big Lie is that fighting terrorism only creates more terrorists.


Terrorism is as much a way of life as it is a belief/faith...where the origins of terrorism are in oppression/revenge...you have to accept that the PA has support, it has a large following of like-minded idividuals, even if they only believe in only one of thier goals its a supporter none-the-less...support leads to friends...but oppression or pressure or even death of one member of the PA can incite anger/fury....as much as the death of an Israeli victim...

Most Terrorist organisations fight the losing battle, and often fight it to the bitter end...and believe me Terrorist organisations are not easily "wiped out"

How long have you been fighting and nothing of it? Your correlation between Nazi Germany and the PA is in my honest opinion is grossly mistaken, where Nazi Germany themselves a hardworking people suppressed by the ideals of a singluar political movement, fought and died for a cause that they were told to carry...
Dont get me wrong I hate Nazism and all its forms

Unfortunatly Israel has the power to hold back, to make a grand gesture of peace and still keep the higher ground in terms of despositions and strategy...

Talk is cheap, but pressure and killing are not the answer, to defeat "terrorism of the PA" you must achieve the support of the Palestinian people before you pressure them all into becoming anti-semites

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Disraeli


You are I fear sadly mistaken.
I come from Ireland and I can attest that compromise is the only way forward for peace.

No Bryan, I respectfully submit you are the one who is sadly mistaken.

Compromise only works when both sides are ready for it. Britain, France, and others tried to compromise with Hitler. They even went so far as to let him conquer Czechloslovakia--in the misguided belief that he perceived a just grievance and that by sacrificing the Czechs peace could be bought for the rest of Europe.


So long as the occupation continues Israel will always be subject to attacks, so long as Israeli settlement continues Israel will always live under threat.

Then please explain why Israel was subjected to constant attacks before Israel captured the WB and Gaza. And please explain why Arab states would not consider for one minute the concept of a negotiated settlement until Israel began building settlements.


This is fact and blindly burying your head in the sand and extolling some mantra about how "terrorism will be vanquished" with military force is counter productive.

Let's wait for you to answer my questions about why there was terrorism before Israel captured the WB and Gaza, and why Arab states only became receptive to negotiations after Israel began building settlements, before reaching any final conclusions about who is burying their head in the sand.


Terrorism has no capital you can invade, no leader to kill, because the more cities you invade and leaders you kill the more people you create who want to be "terrorists".

This defies common sense. What creates terrorists is seeing that terrorism works and that terrorist groups get away with it. According to your logic, the U.S. attack on Afghanistan created terrorists. In reality, it was the first WTC bombing, the embassy bombings in Africa, and the USS Cole bombing that spurred the growth of Al Qaeda.

And you are wrong that there are no terrorist capitals or terrorist leaders. Each of the major terrorist groups is well organized with a clear chain of command. You really need to lift your head up and look around more often.

The terrorist capitals are places like Baghdad, Damascus, Teheran, and Tripoli. These are places where terrorists are provided safe haven and support.



Thus military action is not in fact in the long term interests of an average Israeli, not to mention the millions of Palestinian people who have done "nothing" for the most part to deserve retribution for attacks perpetrated against Israel.

I am not saying that Israelis should want to remain at war forever. But the shortest path to peace has been proven over and over through history. One side has to thoroughly defeat the other. Have you studied history? To suggest that if the good guys just lay their arms down the bad guys will follow suit is at best extremely naive.


Hamas does not bomb Israel in the name of the Palestinian Authority, the IDF does occupy Palestine in the name of the Israeli state, thus so long as this disproportion exists between the two sides, you will have a war of redress in perpetuity.

Hamas and the PA have one major difference: the PA believes that Arabs can gain strategic advantages by creating a mini-state next to Israel (along with placing another million Arabs inside Israel) from which to launch the final assault. Hamas says that negotiating with the "Zionist entity" puts the destruction of Israel at risk.

Actually, the PA is a terrorist United Front.


As I have said the only amicable resolution to this terrible war between the two peoples in question is in fact an internationally mediated agreement.

And that is precisely what Neville Chamberlain said. Had the great democracies stopped Hitler early, tens of millions of lives could have been saved. People like you only learn when it's too late...


Contrary to popular belief, the entire world is not in fact a seething mass of anti-semitism and the entire world does not want to see the "destruction" of Israel.

And what, the exterminationn of half the world's Jews during WW II was just an illusion? No one says all of the world is anti-semitic and seeks the destruction of Israel. But we know who are friends and enemies are. Certainly most of the Arab and Islamic world seeks to destroy Israel. If you can't see that, check for sand in your eyes.


What I want to see is an end to the occupation, unconditionally.
An end to Israeli settlements unconditionally.
A Palestinian state.
An Israeli state where people do not have to fear for their lives, unconditionally.

Let's all just say "unconditionally" and it happens? Again, if you are intellectually honest you will look into the state of things prior to 1967. No occupation, no settlements, and not one Arab country willing to recognize Israel's right to exist. And five Arab countries openly trumpeting their plans to "drive the Jews into the sea."


You cannot enact some grand troop movement and destroy terrorism, how can you? There is no official line, when some random person can just decide to attack civilians, troops cannot stop that only resolving the grievances that bring about the conflict to begin with can.

Terrorists do not exist suspended in mid air. They need state support to build training camps and to organize. They certainly pose a new challenge compared to traditional warfare. But to say they cannot be fought is to surrender before the battle has begun.


Arguably the United States support of Israel was a contributary factor to the bombings on Sepetmber 11th 2001.
Thus for the sake of Israeli security, Palestinian human rights and the American's (Israeli's ally) right to live in peace the occupation and annexation of Palestinian terrorities must stop now and a UN mediated agreement must be implemented.

No, evil mass murderers were the cause. To suggest otherwise shows you are in need of rudimentary moral education. There is no excuse for mass murdering 3,000 people.

According to your twisted logic, had the great democracies simply adopted a more liberal attitude towards Germany and its grievances WW II could have been avoided.

It is foolish to insist that there are no evil people in this world, and that if you give an inch the people on the receiving end will reconsider any evil thoughts that might have entered their brains. In reality, there are people who see life as a struggle of will and arms. When they see their enemies giving an inch, they grab it, and use the new resources to move on to the next demand: a foot.

[Mediocrates]

Contrary to popular belief, the entire world is not in fact a seething mass of anti-semitism and the entire world does not want to see the "destruction" of Israel.

No just the 400 million Arabs they are surrounded by.

What I want to see is an end to the occupation, unconditionally.
An end to Israeli settlements unconditionally.
A Palestinian state.

Let me ask you if you think that unconditional peace in Northern Ireland could include unconditional removal of all Catholics (I’ll simplify the argument to make a point). What I hear over and over Jews Out Peace In I wonder if all the people who advocate this both understand and support the separatist racist aftereffects. Because certainly if a turbulent Palestine in the disputed territories cannot exist, cannot tolerate 9-10% of its population being Jewish there is nothing to suggest that Free Palestine would be anything other than a Jew Free Palestine. Which maybe people do support – but they should cop to it.

An Israeli state where people do not have to fear for their lives, unconditionally.

How does one do that? Since they are faced with a PA-Hamas-istan that has discovered you can use terrorism as a legitimate tool of foreign relations. What does one do with a terrorist state called the Independent Free Nation of Palestine?

Arguably the United States support of Israel was a contributory factor to the bombings on September 11th 2001.

Arguably those terrorists cynically stated that fact, after the fact. In fact, as a largely secular, westernized, college educated, television watching, cell phone owning, nike t-shirt wearing populace, Palestinians are of little interest to OBL. The wonderful thing about terrorism is that you can claim anything at all as a motivation. Even the FALN in Columbia talks about freedom. They understand that as a policy issue civil rights for drug lords doesn’t have any traction. Same too with all of the post hoc analysis of 911. It is about OBLs hatred of the west. Anything else is a peripheral issue and had never surfaced before 9-11.

[searrard]

Originally posted by ibrodsky

...According to your twisted logic, had the great democracies simply adopted a more liberal attitude towards Germany and its grievances WW II could have been avoided.


Did Versailles not sow the seeds for WW2?, if the big three had acknowledged that they were all to blame for WWI, and worked with germany for its disarmamnet and goals of rebuilding europe economically and not socaily (which was impossible)...
...Chamberlain was prepared to give Hitler breathing room while in turn he went about advancing Britains Army and forcing the B.E.F. to work hand in hand with France incase things went sour he was not the muppet that "peace in our time" quote that modern history remembers him for, he worked hard for peace but it was always Hitlers ambtions for war....
is this not so?



Originally posted by ibrodsky

Terrorists do not exist suspended in mid air. They need state support to build training camps and to organize. They certainly pose a new challenge compared to traditional warfare. But to say they cannot be fought is to surrender before the battle has begun.


this is not true, terrorism can happen behind closed doors, can operate by word of mouth alone.....

[Mediocrates]

Unfortunatly Israel has the power to hold back, to make a grand gesture of peace and still keep the higher ground in terms of despositions and strategy...

The ONLY advantage to taking the moral highground is you offer a better target to get shot at.

Talk is cheap, but pressure and killing are not the answer, to defeat "terrorism of the PA" you must achieve the support of the Palestinian people before you pressure them all into becoming anti-semites

There will never be support from the Palestinian people. The best we can hope for is they resist the PA from the inside, topple them and proceed with a negotiated settlement.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by searrard
this is not true, terrorism can happen behind closed doors, can operate by word of mouth alone.....

Terrorism is an organizational endevor like any other. It needs organization, people, materiel, money, logistics, plans, intelligence all of which for efficiency and security must be contained in the heads of important people who sit at the nexus of small cellular local networks linked together from the top down. Eliminate those top down and cross connections eg. people, and you reduce dramatically the ability of terrorists to carry out their operations.

[searrard]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Unfortunatly Israel has the power to hold back, to make a grand gesture of peace and still keep the higher ground in terms of despositions and strategy...

The ONLY advantage to taking the moral highground is you offer a better target to get shot at.


I never mentioned "moral highground" which is so far and removed from troop depositions...


Originally posted by Mediocrates

There will never be support from the Palestinian people

Then what do you have to offer Palestine? But segregation and opression, Enforcement and Racism.....you now offer them nothing but violence and bloodshed and you are surprised when they fight back?...do you truely believe that Israel has nothing to offer "400 million Arabs"...not even common economic goals, common goals on infrastructure...or will this region just be known for violence and War!


Terrorism is an organizational endevor like any other. It needs organization, people, materiel, money, logistics, plans, intelligence all of which for efficiency and security must be contained in the heads of important people who sit at the nexus of small cellular local networks linked together from the top down. Eliminate those top down and cross connections eg. people, and you reduce dramatically the ability of terrorists to carry out their operations.

Terrorism is an organisation, but so is a book club, basic explosives are easy to make, and by pooling a few Euros evry week, comodities are purchased, visit a local cell member and decide a target...In many countries around the world terrorism doesn't need a face, doesn't need a name, it just needs to show a reason

[Disraeli]

Compromise only works when both sides are ready for it. Britain, France, and others tried to compromise with Hitler. They even went so far as to let him conquer Czechloslovakia--in the misguided belief that he perceived a just grievance and that by sacrificing the Czechs peace could be bought for the rest of Europe.

Against the backdrop of the First World War and the Treaty of Versailles, which set the breeding grounds where a nut like Hitler could take control of a country that was for the most part just like most of it's European counterparts until it was defeated in the Great War.

This defeat became known as the stab in the back in Germany and Jews were blamed and scapegoated for that.

In reality though the Palestinian Authority is not akin to Germany. Germany was a huge industrial nation that had a histroy of militarism from the time of Prussia and the Autro-Hungarian Empire ie the 6 weeks war, Palestine is a state that has been occupied for roughly fourty years and is not a gigantic enconomic power. To contrast further there are roughly Eighty Five million Germans and perhaps Three million Palestinians, so I do not accept the anaology between Nazi Germany and the Palestinian Authority or Yassir Arafat and Adolf Hitler.

To say that compromise was the mistake of Britian and France is true, to say that compromise itself is a mistake is false.

If Britiain and Ireland had not compromised on Northern Ireland there would still be war between our two peoples. Fortunately the parties involved saw the futility of attempting to side line in perpetuity the wishes and desires of the other and a dispensation has been reached.

Was compromising a mistake made by Britain in the case of Northern Ireland?

Lest examine that proposition.
The people of Ireland no longer live in fear of Loyalist terrorism. The people of Northern Ireland have a society that is an order of magnitude more peaceful then it was twenty years ago.
The people of the rest of the UK do not live in fear of IRA attacks.

So in this instance and negotiated and compromised settlement was the right solution.

See compromise isn't really such a bad thing and compromise must always supercede war.



Then please explain why Israel was subjected to constant attacks before Israel captured the WB and Gaza.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Israel is still being attacked. Ok so it is being attacked less, but as soon as you withdraw the Palestinians are sure to retailate, thus occupation is counter productive as each incursion or witch hunt simply makes more resentment and more hatred of Israel and thus more attakcs.



And please explain why Arab states would not consider for one minute the concept of a negotiated settlement until Israel began building settlements.
I would assume relgious fundamentalism. Funnily enough it is religious fundamentalism that proports that Israel should be purged of one million Muslims in perpetuity because those people are of the wrong religion.

Didn't the dangers of such exclusion based on religion become so obvious from the autrocities the Nazis commited against your own people in the 1940s. Thus the Jewish more than anyone on earth should be perpaired to accept peoples of all relgions in the state of Israel.

I don't and won't accep that the one million Muslims expelled from Israel are agents of Hamas, that seems racist and I think on examination it would proove to be a fallacy.


What creates terrorists is seeing that terrorism works and that terrorist groups get away with it.

I would say that encourages people with a grievance to act. Without that grievance though there would be no reason for terrorist attack.

Your argument does not stand up to scrutiny. The root cause of Palestinian terrorism is not that Israel has presented a relaxed military posture and been seen to allow terrorism to flourish, but is the suppression of the people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. At this stage in the game Israel must stop arbitrarily vetting out what it regards as justice, I believe Israel must allow the internation community to mediate a settlement and place UN troops between the state of Israel and the Palestinians until such time as relations between the two can be normalised.


According to your logic, the U.S. attack on Afghanistan created terrorists. In reality, it was the first WTC bombing, the embassy bombings in Africa, and the USS Cole bombing that spurred the growth of Al Qaeda.

The dropping of Daisy cutters on villages in Afghanistan has no doubt spurred hatred against the US and thus hatred will I believe unfortunately spur more people to attack the US.



And you are wrong that there are no terrorist capitals or terrorist leaders. Each of the major terrorist groups is well organized with a clear chain of command. You really need to lift your head up and look around more often.
Yes there are terrorists in many of the named cities however if you send an army into that city the terrorist will flee, leaving only the most vulnerable to bear the brunt of military action, thus subjecting innocents to military violence and creating hatred and terrorism.



The terrorist capitals are places like Baghdad, Damascus, Teheran, and Tripoli. These are places where terrorists are provided safe haven and support.

It is the regieme not the country. Saddam Hussein is a distateful character, a despot, without doubt. He has used chemical weapons against the Kurds in Northern Iraq and should have been removed from power long ago. What is wrong is making the Iraqi civilian suffer because of Saddam Hussein, Iraq already suffers his dictatorship, it doesn't need war and sanctions added to that injustice. What is really hypocritical is that the West not just the US has supported Saddam Hussein militarily in the past only to turn on him when it found him not as useful.


I am not saying that Israelis should want to remain at war forever. But the shortest path to peace has been proven over and over through history.

So tell me you suggest military incursion until you emerge victorious? Does it not mean anything to you that the UN and most of the other nations on the planet do not in fact share this view of the Middle Eastern situation?


One side has to thoroughly defeat the other.
Not true in Northern Ireland there is a power sharing government, there has been no victor, but simply the people of these islands are tired of war, we want something better for ourselves and we have compromised with each other to bring that about.


Hamas and the PA have one major difference: the PA believes that Arabs can gain strategic advantages by creating a mini-state next to Israel (along with placing another million Arabs inside Israel) from which to launch the final assault. Hamas says that negotiating with the "Zionist entity" puts the destruction of Israel at risk.

The Palestinian authority is not answerable for the actions of Hamas, you may equate them till the cows come home, but Yassir Arafat has called again and again for an end to terrorist autrocities against Israel.

http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/peace/archives/2001/december/121701.html



The U.S. State Department said December 16 that Palestinian Authority
Chairman Yasser Arafat's call earlier the same day for an end to
terrorism was "constructive,




Actually, the PA is a terrorist United Front.
Nope, it's the only authority Israel can negotiate with and for peace you need to get that into your heads.

I'm not trying to start an argument, but it is impossible to achieve peace if you won't even recognise the validity of your counterparts in negotiation.


And what, the exterminationn of half the world's Jews during WW II was just an illusion?

That was not the fault of the Palestinians. Look my family fought in that war, it was a terrible autrocity perpitrated by the Nazis and for that reason I can't fathom why Israel can't recognise that it is mistreating the Palestinians when the Jewish people should be the very last people on earth to ever do anything like that. It makes no sense.


No one says all of the world is anti-semitic and seeks the destruction of Israel.
Good I want to see a peaceful world for all people and that includes Jews, Muslims and anyone else you care to mention.


Certainly most of the Arab and Islamic world seeks to destroy Israel.
Seeks? Perhaps so, however Israel can not be a law unto itself, it must operate within the UN not outside of it.



No occupation, no settlements, and not one Arab country willing to recognize Israel's right to exist. And five Arab countries openly trumpeting their plans to "drive the Jews into the sea."
Acting within the auspices of the UN will gaurantee Israels right to exist and a military defeat considering US support of Israel is nonesense, to the argument that a just settlement for the Palestinians implys Israel won't exist is fallacious in my opinion.


Terrorists do not exist suspended in mid air.
Exactly, remove their grievance (ie occupation and a lack of self determination via statehood) and the terrorism abates.


There is no excuse for mass murdering 3,000 people.
Similarly there is no excuse for asassinating people as Israel has done with suspected terrorists. Due process must be paramount.

[Disraeli]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
What I hear over and over Jews Out Peace In I wonder if all the people who advocate this both understand and support the separatist racist aftereffects.


Clearly the settlements must stop, they are wrong, one cannot simply occupy and annex displace and marginalise, these are modern times. So fine the settlements stay then the 'displaced' Muslims must be allowed the right to return to Israel don't you agree? If the Jewish settlers have the right to live unhindered in a Palestinian state (as they most right should) then similarly the Muslims expelled from Israel must be allowed to return.
Quid pro quo.



An Israeli state where people do not have to fear for their lives, unconditionally.

How does one do that? Since they are faced with a PA-Hamas-istan that has discovered you can use terrorism
The corollary of course is that Israel has discovered that it has, or rather has endowed itself with the right to dispense 'justice' via asassination and occupation so it is in my view not an entity that can shout "J'Accuse" in lieu of the fact it has sancioned the arbitrary asassination of people it deems to be terrorists. That is effectively murder and the reality that it is comitted by a state is in fact more repugnant, because whilst Hamas is not an offically mandated constituant part of the Palestinian Authority the Israeli Defence Force is a mandated part of the Israeli state and it has and is carrying out autrocities in the name of Israel.

The Nazi wrongdoing against the Jews in the 40s does not give Israel indemnification such that people should turn a blind eye to the injustice behind the actions of Israel as an entity an the policies it pursues vis-a-vis occupation,annexation and asassination.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by searrard
Did Versailles not sow the seeds for WW2?, if the big three had acknowledged that they were all to blame for WWI, and worked with germany for its disarmamnet and goals of rebuilding europe economically and not socaily (which was impossible)...
...Chamberlain was prepared to give Hitler breathing room while in turn he went about advancing Britains Army and forcing the B.E.F. to work hand in hand with France incase things went sour he was not the muppet that "peace in our time" quote that modern history remembers him for, he worked hard for peace but it was always Hitlers ambtions for war....
is this not so?

No, Versailles did not cause WW II, Hitler did. Hitler demanded "living room," not "breathing room." Hitler enunciated his racial ideology in Mein Kampf before he became Chancellor; people chose not to believe he meant what he said. Hitler violated every agreement that Germany had made before he took power, and violated most everything he agreed to himself.

There is actually a striking resemblance between Nazi Germany and the Arab world in this regard (putting aside for now the fact that Arab states such as Iraq were in open alliance with the Nazis). Both Hitler and a number of Arab leaders believed (and still believe) that paper treaties and signatures are a joke taken seriously only by the leaders of what they see as spineless democracies. Real men don't need to bow to the will of their people...

Just prior to launching the war, Hitler gave a series of speeches in which he insisted he sought peace. Actually, this was just propaganda: he knew that if he talked "peace" that it would bolster the position of pacifists in England, France, and the U.S. Of course, he blamed the war on his victims, even staging an "attack" by Poland against Germany.


this is not true, terrorism can happen behind closed doors, can operate by word of mouth alone.....

So why did Osama bin Laden have multiple training camps in Afghanistan. Why did the 9/11 hijackers enroll in flight school? Who paid for all of this? Do you imagine it was all planned the weekend before?

Sure, an individual with a gun can attack someone by himself. But the embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, and the WTC/Pentagon attacks were well planned, financed, and organized--and had to be.

Big attacks require money, planning, and support. There's no getting around it.

[Mediocrates]

do you truely believe that Israel has nothing to offer "400 million Arabs"...not even common economic goals, common goals on infrastructure...or will this region just be known for violence and War!


Yes I believe that apart from unavoidable regional issues where they all sink or swim together like water there is nothing the Israelis and the Arabs have to offer one another. Israel has lived w/o their love and kindness and the Aab countries seem to make out just fine living in the Bronze Age and pumping oil. The PA, grounded as it is in a service orientation seems poised in a modern world to become a kind of service based economy anyway. There is no reason it can't ultimately become a kind of Abu Dhabi except more secular. And there is less than no reason to pretend that their economic salvation lies with cheap day labor. And even if it does there are plently of jobs elsewhere like the nearly 300,000 who were living in and then expelled from Kuwait in early 1991 after Iraq was defeated. Ask them if they need any help.


terrorism is an organisation, but so is a book club, basic explosives are easy to make, and by pooling a few Euros evry week, comodities are purchased, visit a local cell member and decide a target...In many countries around the world terrorism doesn't need a face, doesn't need a name, it just needs to show a reason

It doesn't even need a reason it just needs a BOOM. But it does require an infrastructure. Asymmetrical warfare still requires the tools of warfare. We're not talking about 2 bombs a month although that is the quaint heroic myth than murderers would have you believe. Wrap a scarf round your head and charge the checkpoints me laddies!

uh no. It takes organization to intercept an ambulance in use and fill it with guns and people to shoot them.

[drelan]

From what I hear on the news here Israel is pulling out more than weeds. Both sides claim that they're in an act of "pulling out weeds", but inflicting innocent civilians is not gardening. Keeping a nation in third-world poverty is not a peaceful act. Occupying a nation, setting a mass curfew, denying basic rights, punishing the relatives of an extremist. Excusing the murder of Palestinians who seemed like a threat is not justice. If it was only pulling weeds, I may sypathize with you, but I fear it is much more than simple gardening.

[Mediocrates]

And to the rest of you:

Their grievance can't be removed. It is the destruction of Israel. So there is no need to pretend they can be appeased, accomodated, bought off or seduced.

It matters nearly zero how the sun rising in the east or waving a flag or defending one's self is a provocation that will lead to more war. Doing nothing will lead to more war when their aim is afterall the destruction of Israel.

[searrard]

No, Versailles did not cause WW II, Hitler did. Hitler demanded "living room," not "breathing room." Hitler enunciated his racial ideology in Mein Kampf before he became Chancellor; people chose not to believe he meant what he said. Hitler violated every agreement that Germany had made before he took power, and violated most everything he agreed to himself.

I never stated that Versailles caused WW II, it was one of the biggest contributing factor, and a major selling point behind the ideals of the Nazi party, in which Hitler was instrumental....

[searrard]

So why did Osama bin Laden have multiple training camps in Afghanistan. Why did the 9/11 hijackers enroll in flight school? Who paid for all of this? Do you imagine it was all planned the weekend before?

Sure, an individual with a gun can attack someone by himself. But the embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, and the WTC/Pentagon attacks were well planned, financed, and organized--and had to be.

Big attacks require money, planning, and support. There's no getting around it.

thats just one example, what about ETA, IRA, UVF...indoneisia
what about lybian terrorist cells

terrorism is not just 9/11 or PA

and from the looks of this site a lot of senior members have no qualms of destroying the Palestinian people in a effort to end terrorism and that has neverworked in any country faced with the same problem

[drelan]

Originally posted by searrard


thats just one example, what about ETA, IRA, UVF...indoneisia
what about lybian terrorist cells

terrorism is not just 9/11 or PA

and from the looks of this site a lot of senior members have no qualms of destroying the Palestinian people in a effort to end terrorism and that has neverworked in any country faced with the same problem

the senior members do seem bent on destroying the Palestinian state, and justify that it is becasue the Palestinians want to destroy them.
Such a mature viewpoint! I now understand why you must be 21 to to voice your opinion here.

The land belongs to both. The Palestinians cannot simply move over to another Arab country, we must also remember that they were evicted from many lands at the creation of Israel, am I not correct?

None of the states should be destroyed.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by drelan
Keeping a nation in third-world poverty is not a peaceful act.

This is an issue that you need to take up with the corrupt Palestinian leadership, which has pillaged and looted their own national funds, leaving the Palestinians to live in poverty. Add to that the Palestinian national choice to support terrorism rather than to support an economic infrastructure and the result is plain to see.

But it's not Israel's fault. These are issues that the Palestinians must solve for themselves through cultural and societal changes.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by drelan


the senior members do seem bent on destroying the Palestinian state, and justify that it is becasue the Palestinians want to destroy them.
Such a mature viewpoint! I now understand why you must be 21 to to voice your opinion here.

The land belongs to both. The Palestinians cannot simply move over to another Arab country, we must also remember that they were evicted from many lands at the creation of Israel, am I not correct?

None of the states should be destroyed.

What an incredible example of turnspeak. You accuse us of wanting to destroy the Palestinian people. Let's review the indisputable facts:

1. Numerous Palestinian groups, including Yasser Arafat's PLO, published charters that explicitly stated their goal is to replace Israel with an Islamic or Arab state.

2. Numerous Arab countries publicly stated that that their goal was to destroy Israel. Egypt's Nasser went further, saying he would "drive the Jews into the sea." Note that most Arab states still do not recognize Israel's right to exist.

3. Arab terrorists purposely kill Israeli civilians and, in doing so, enjoy broad support from neighboring countries--both the leaders and the "street." If their quarrel is really just with the Israeli government or "Zionist extremists" why do they target civilians? If anything, they seem to prefer to kill women, children, and elderly.

4. Israel offered the Palestinians a state. Israel gave the Sinai back to Egypt. What concessions have Israel's enemies made?

5. The PA responded to Israel's settlement offer not with a counter offer but with a war, breaking every agreement that had been made up until then.

6. What don't you understand about Arab maps that show "Palestine" encompassing the WB, Gaza, and Israel?

To claim that we are the ones who want to destroy the "Palestinians" (they even stole the name: Palestine was Rome's Jewish colony) when they have explicitly stated that their goal is to destroy us is the height of hypocrisy.

[pacifist]

I find it sad, even terrifying that the only person here making any reasonable points is drelan. Issues such as the Israeli conflict are NEVER black and white, and seeing them in such a way is highly infantile. There is no simple solution, there is no easy way to peace but war is most certainly not the way.

What we have in Israel is a historical grudge. What it's even based on is hard to decipher, but the beginning of the solution is the realization, by both sides, that they have done wrong. Life isn't about race and religion it's about human beings and embracing the beauty and vitality that may be found all around us.

Both sides fear the destruction of thier unique and valuable culture, and both simply want to live on land that their people have lived on for thousands of years.

They've been fighting for ages, and it appears fighting has gotten them no where. The only solution is compromise and the realization that BOTH sides are comprised of rational human beings with wives, children, emotions and passion who only want security, freedom of belief and expression.

Your demonization of the Palestinean people demonstrates infantile amounts of wisdom and great lack of foresight. War is never the way, violence never a complete solution. Gandhi did great things without even raising a hand.

[Simon]

"An eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind" -Mahatma Gandhi"

At the level of a philosophical discussion, I have a serious issue with the above saying.

If you dont retaliate against the attacker, the attacker will have both his eyes intact while you will be blind. Then he can slit your throat at leisure, r*** your wife, and cut the throats of your little ones. So the proper response upon losing an eye is to completely blind the attacker. Two eyes for one eye. That way, he is now blind while you still have one eye left. And your family is safe.


There is a simple reason why peace with the Palestinians and indeed muslims in general is never going to be achieved. The hatred sown in the muslim mind is too great. For generations now, they have been taught that the jew is dhimmi. That hatred is still taught in most, if not all muslim countries.

Here is why Arafat will never want peace. If there is peace, the palestinians will demand good governance, accoutability from Arafat. That he cannot deliver because he is incapable of providing good governance. He is good at killing and destroying, not creating.

The moment there is peace with the Jews, the palestinians would turn on Arafat in a heartbeat. He knows that. This analogy is also equally applicable to almost all islamic regimes/states. Until now hatred of the jew or the hindu has kept islamic frustrations directed at non-muslims. Take away the unifying factor of hatred for the jew (or the hindu) and their societies will implode from the millenia of accumulated hatred.

It is really disheartening, isnt it? To think that we will never be at peace and neither will our children and their children?

[pacifist]

On the other hand, if you dont retaliate against the attacker, the attacker will have both his eyes intact while you will be blind.

---It's a matter of stopping the cycle of revenge. This has been demonstrated in many conflicts throughout the world. I as a person refuse to let another hurt me but I also refuse to use the petty and useless method of violence. There are many solutions available, but these require new thinking, risk taking and more courage than it takes to kill.---

There is a simple reason why peace with the Palestinians and indeed muslims in general is never going to be achieved. The hatred sown in the muslim mind is too great. For generations now, they have been taught that the jew is dhimmi. That hatred is still taught in most, if not all muslim countries

---I will agree that the Palestineans contribute greatly to the problem of violence through thier hateful worldview and the conditioning of thier offspring to hate the Jews, yet is it not natural to have a poor view of the suppressor? The jews have the upper hand in this situation and the palestineans must feel like biting back is the only option. They have been backed into a corner. They have chosen the *wrong* method of expressing thier position but they've been stepped on for a very long time.---

Here is why Arafat will never want peace. If there is peace, the palestinians will demand good governance, accoutability from Arafat. That he cannot deliver because he is incapable of providing good governance. He is good at killing and destroying, not creating.

---This is quite an interesting point and one that I do find validity in. But again, you're scapegoating the whole situation and pointing the finger at one man and one race when the situation is the fault of everyone that could stand up for peace, muslim and jew alike.---

The moment there is peace with the Jews, the palestinians would turn on Arafat in a heartbeat. He knows that. This analogy is also equally applicable to almost all islamic regimes/states. Until now hatred of the jew or the hindu has kept islamic frustrations directed at non-muslims. Take away the unifying factor of hatred for the jew (or the hindu) and their societies will implode from the millenia of accumulated hatred

---Hatred coming from anywhere is never justified. It is the antithesis to achieving what you are after and will only serve to destroy. Again the point on Arafat is a valid one, yet does it validate escalated violence on the part of the jews? I don't think so. I believe that if the jews demonstrated a refusal to take part in this fighting a message would be sent.---

It is really disheartening, isnt it? To think that we will never be at peace and neither will our children and their children?

Its precisely this view that peace is impossible that exacerbates violence. We must all hold the view that peace is possible, even imminent for it to manifest itself through our actions.

[Mediocrates]

I'm with ya, what's the plan?

[pacifist]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
I'm with ya, what's the plan?

Good question. When people start realizing the validity behind my statements and recognize the flaws in thier thinking the next step is to get together, respecting the stance of everyone else in the room and share views, ideas, opinions- calmly and fairly.

Give me some time to collect my thoughts and perhaps I will be able to come up with a few more steps.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by pacifist
I find it sad, even terrifying that the only person here making any reasonable points is drelan. Issues such as the Israeli conflict are NEVER black and white, and seeing them in such a way is highly infantile. There is no simple solution, there is no easy way to peace but war is most certainly not the way.

You claim on one hand that the issues are not black and white and there is no clear cut solution, but on the other hand that only drelan makes any sense. Amazing how easily you dismiss every other view considering the issues are so murky.


What we have in Israel is a historical grudge. What it's even based on is hard to decipher, but the beginning of the solution is the realization, by both sides, that they have done wrong. Life isn't about race and religion it's about human beings and embracing the beauty and vitality that may be found all around us.

Thanks for the off-the-top-of-your-head history lesson.

Before going further with your sermon, ask yourself which society is for life and which society is for death. Ask yourself who, between the Israelis and Palestinian Arabs, teaches their children the "beauty and vitality that may be found all around us."

If you still don't get it, think about what Israel's main products are and what the PA's main products are.

Did you know that an organ (kidney, I think) from the Scottish lad who was killed in the most recent Palestinian terrorist attack was used to save the life of a Palestinian girl? While Palestinian Arabs dream up new and better ways to kill Jews for being Jews, Israelis save Palestinians' lives.


Both sides fear the destruction of thier unique and valuable culture, and both simply want to live on land that their people have lived on for thousands of years.

Check your history. Arabs have not lived there for thousands of years. They came from Arabia.


They've been fighting for ages, and it appears fighting has gotten them no where. The only solution is compromise and the realization that BOTH sides are comprised of rational human beings with wives, children, emotions and passion who only want security, freedom of belief and expression.

Now, this isn't even history--more like current events. Which side negotiated in good faith and presented a proposal that included a Palestinian state and the guarantee of Israel's security? Which side said "no," demanded something that could only be explained as designed to deny Israel security, and then broke their vow to not resort to violence?

If you are still confused, tell me exactly when the Palestinian side presented their proposed solution? Why was it 100% up to Israel to present the right list of concessions? Why were the Palestinians exempt from even bothering to present a counter-offer?

And given these facts, why do you blame both sides equally?


Your demonization of the Palestinean people demonstrates infantile amounts of wisdom and great lack of foresight. War is never the way, violence never a complete solution. Gandhi did great things without even raising a hand.

We forgot: "Islamic Jihad" is a debating society. Yasser Arafat is a kindly statesman. And homicide bombers are just "frustrated."

Actually, a better question is why do you whitewash terrorists and call us "infantile"?

And since you are against war, why do you overlook one little thorny detail: the Palestinians started this war and have tried for nearly two years to ignite a regional conflagration.

[Justicator]

The moment there is peace with the Jews, the palestinians would turn on Arafat in a heartbeat. He knows that. This analogy is also equally applicable to almost all islamic regimes/states. Until now hatred of the jew or the hindu has kept islamic frustrations directed at non-muslims. Take away the unifying factor of hatred for the jew (or the hindu) and their societies will implode from the millenia of accumulated hatred.

Simon my exact thoughts on the topic leaders like Arafat deserve a fate worse than mere death . :)

[zionist]

Originally posted by drelan
Comparing the PA to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan seems like somewhat of a falicy to me. I beleive that it is paradoxical to say that war brings peace, and I do not agree that the actions of the Israeli military are now bringing peace to anyone, including Israel itself.

I realize that I may not see things from your perspective as I live abroad, but then perhaps you can explain to me how your actions are bringing peace to anyone. If I am correct, Jews were given a homeland partially in response to the halocaust in WWII. There was rampant anti-semitism prior to WWII, but now everyone agree's that the genocide preformed by Nazi Germany was horrific. Any type of hate in this measure is horrific, and subsequently, any type of hate that leads to the oppression and near anialation of a nation is horrific. I do not support palestinian suicide bombers, but neither do I support the military occupation and oppression of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

However, I feel that in this situation Israel (together with its ally, the United States of America) must take the first step to bring about a peace. And this is not through war. War is such a superficial, and temporary resolution to the promlems nations face today.

Please let me know how much you disagree with me.

Let me respond in this way. I don't think that Israel believes that war can achieve peace. To say that is ludicrous and I give the Israeli government more credit than that. Israel is fighting simply to stay alive. Do you understand that, Drelan? Simply to stay alive. What the hell is Israel supposed to do. We are not talking about a large country. We are speaking about a tiny piece of land. Israel did not OCCUPY (pardon the caps) the land in 1967 rather conquered it. If most nations of the world returned conquered/occupied land there would be no Britian, France or even a U.S. How dare the world demand that Israel return land it conquered in a war forced upon her in '67. I don't know what the solution is. How can Israel, in this situation even attempt to make peace when there is no peace partner? All I know is that Israel needs to protect herself because even though they have military might, one mistake and it's all over! I don't know if you are Jewish because then perhaps you would understand somewhat better.

[Disraeli]

Let me respond in this way. I don't think that Israel believes that war can achieve peace. To say that is ludicrous and I give the Israeli government more credit than that. Israel is fighting simply to stay alive.

What an utterly absurd thing to say. Israel has Nuclear Weapons, so the thought that aggressor (x) might try to militarily destroy Israel is not laughable, but stupid. Seriously there is no threat to Israel from invasion, because any potential adversary knows full well that Israel posesses Nuclear Weapons and is likely to use them to defend itself, thus Israel does not need to supress the Palestinians in order to survive. It is frequently extolled that Israel is frighting for survival, when in fact there is no question that Israel has the right to exist (not according to the UN anyway, nor most of the developed world), thus rather than simply trodding all over world opinion with the mantra "Israel must fight to survive", what the Israeli state should do is come into the fold from it's current isolation.

Benjamin Disraeli exponenciated a policy of "Splendid isolation" for the UK, yet still the UK was sucked into war in the Crimea, war in Europe and it was eventually the wars fought in Europe that Britian participated in that heralded the end of the Briitsh Empire.


Israel did not OCCUPY (pardon the caps) the land in 1967 rather conquered it.

Excuse me, do you think this is the dark ages? Conquored the land? I think the UN takes a rather different view of that. Conquored the land, how can an American (assuming that is what you are coming from New York) speak of 'conquering', when if you read the American constitution the first words are "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal", thus the concept of 'conquering' is a fallacy as it negates the equality of the conquored people.


How dare the world demand that Israel return land it conquered in a war forced upon her in '67.

Are you mad? How dare the Israeli government settle land that does not belong to it, how dare it occupy, annex and settle land contrary to edict from the UN. You obviously haven't read the American constitution, which is big on equality, if you had you would realise that subjetation of another people is in fact setting those people to a lesser standing and that is fundamentally contrary to any notions of democracy or equality contained in the constitution.

How can the Jews who were so hated, who had so many of their rights to equality and freedom to persue happiness even contemplate lessening the civil rights of the Palestinians by attempting to as you so aptly put it "conquor" the Palestinian terroritory? How dare Israel lecture the rest of the world on how it is a seething mass of quasi-nazi anti-semitism when it refuses to acknowledge the basic human rights of the Palestinian people.
Rights like the freedom to live without occupation, the freedom to elect representative government that can take actions to better the surrounding environment of the people who elect it. Occupation, annexation and settlement negates these rights fundamentally.

I just don't get it, how much propaganda makes it ok to 'conquor' and settle on someone else's home? How much hatred and loathing is required to rationalise such a thing? How many people does one have to accuse of being a Nazi before no one else's opinion bar the opinion that agrees with your own counts? I really just need to know that.


How can Israel, in this situation even attempt to make peace when there is no peace partner?
Of course there is a Peace Partner. The international community has and is offering inumerate times and in innumerate ways to intercede and bring about peace in the Middle East and contrary to popular belief the entire Palestinian nation is not in fact a three million strong Hamas reserve, it is in fact a people just like the people of Israel and it is a people who have been stepped on for a long, long time, but the Palestinian are still people and if you treat them with respect and understanding you will recieve the same in kind.



" I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? - fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you ***** us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"

Now substitute the word Jew for Palestinian and ask yourselves, are the Palestinian people not people too and if you ***** them do they not bleed, if you tickle them do they not laugh and if you wrong them, shall the not revenge?
Quid pro quo.


All I know is that Israel needs to protect herself because even though they have military might, one mistake and it's all over!
Yeah that's true, imagine Israel actually used the Nuclear Weapons it posesses, that really would be one huge mistake!


I don't know if you are Jewish because then perhaps you would understand somewhat better.

Why because if you are Jewish you are perpaired to cast a blind eye to what Israel does, because when it comes to Israel it's Jews who come first? I'm quite shocked, again that a people who were discriminated against so much throughout the ages can be so racist, pig headed and intransigent as to suggest that one's religion should dicatate one's access to human rights, how utterly ironic.

[The Saint]

Israel did not OCCUPY (pardon the caps) the land in 1967 rather conquered it.

Germany didnt occupy Poland, Austria ect. in 1945 rather conquered it.


How dare the world demand that Israel return land it conquered in a war forced upon her in '67.

How dare the world demand Germany return land it conquered in 1945

See where I'm going with this?

I would also like to make a point about this site. Anyone who criticises Israels actions is automatically denounced as an anti-semite and insulted constantly. If someone makes a valid point about Israels disgraceful actions they do not get a serious answer but insults. This only proves that some people cannot defend the point so they turn to insults.

Also, looking at this site, if you changed the word arab, muslim, Palistinian ect with the word Jew it would be Nazism, yet you continue to racially assault these people on this site. If this were any other site in the world it would be banned for racist propoganda.

Just because everyone disagrees with Israels action does not mean the hate jews or want to see Israel destroyed.

[danholo]

Well, you also must know history.

If you look at the situations, Israel occupied the territories in self-defense. Nazi-Germany on the other hand didn't conquer anything in 1945.

[The Saint]

Is that the best response you can give?

[Mediocrates]

Just because everyone disagrees with Israels action does not mean the hate jews or want to see Israel destroyed.


Woops, a slip of the tongue I think!

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by The Saint
Is that the best response you can give?


To what?

[The Saint]

By everyone I meant most non-american and non-jewish people in this world.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by The Saint
By everyone I meant most non-american and non-jewish people in this world.


Most Laplanders feel as I do. But all those Easter Islanders are just a bunch of dogs. There are quite a few who probably live in Indonesia who may or may not feel as I do but I am positive that there are more than a few Koreans who agree.

[The Saint]

No, I mean, Europe, Asia, Australia, South America, Canada, a lot of people in the US are starting realise whats going on. (its about time) and even people in Israel are appauled.

[Mediocrates]

I understand what you mean I just don't agree. The percentage of people all over the world who actually care is quite small. The percentage of people who publically say random antisraeli nonsense is larger. The percentage of people who publically give real support to the Palestinians is very small. The number of people who give public support to Israel is very small.

The Arab 'street' were all supposed to tremble at has never met a Jew or an Israeli first hand and doesn't know anyone who has. Virtually all the press in the Arab world is controlled - it's not news at all really but simply propaganda. Internet penetration in the Arab world is near zero. So let's say that all this vitriolic hatred is focused on 400 million people who consider it their birthright to hate and kill all Jews everywhere.

In the West I would suspect what you're seeing is a public manifestation of what people have felt and talked about in their homes for generations. Why else do you think that no other group can be singled out publically and all the self appointed pundits can tell you they "just know the truth about those Jew/Jewish/Zionist/Israelis?" You couldn't do that with any other group, certainly not in America and get away with it. So add whatever arbitrary percentage of the western populace you want to that baseline 400 million.

[Miriam]

Originally posted by The Saint
By everyone I meant most non-american and non-jewish people in this world. What does your nick mean?

[ayesha]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Internet penetration in the Arab world is near zero.

Where did you get that from Mediocrates?

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by The Saint
Also, looking at this site, if you changed the word arab, muslim, Palistinian ect with the word Jew it would be Nazism, yet you continue to racially assault these people on this site. If this were any other site in the world it would be banned for racist propoganda.

That's nonsense.

And, quote frankly, if Jews would ever commit the atrocities which are committed by the Arabs and other Muslims daily, the world would not react with the same kind of patience and "understanding" that is being shown to the Arab mass-murderers.

But in your fantasy land, in which you apparently delude yourself into thinking that you're some kind of "Saint" because you justify massacres and terrorism against the Jewish people of Israel, things are predictably off kilter.

And on our part, it is not racist at all to point out the facts as they are reported in the media daily.

- It is not racist to criticize Arab and Islamic terrorism.

- It is not racist to oppose the brutal and corrupt regimes of the Arab states, and it is not racist at all

- It is not racist to support the right of the Jewish people to live in our historical homeland, as a free and independent people.

- It is not racist to take Europe to task for its historical -- and present -- record of overwhelming anti-Semitism.


Yes, "Saint", you have landed not on some al Qaeda or radical Marxist or neo-Nazi Euro-babble site, but instead you are here on the Israel Forum. It should come as no surprise to you that people oppose Palestinian terrorism here. And it should come as no surprise to you that many of us know full well that the Palestinian are nothing but squatters occupying parts of the Jewish homeland by force, while conducting a Jihad-genocide against the rest of the Jewish people of Israel.

Sure, you're entitled to have differing opinions and discuss them here. We welcome discussion and debate. But please leave your sanctimonious cheap shots at the forum elsewhere.

But if you can't handle legitimate criticism of Arab and Islamic terrorism, and of the hypocrisy and anti-Semitism that infects much of Europe, then there are plenty of European Islamic, radical Marxist and Neo-Nazi sites that may be a better match for you.

[zionist]

Originally posted by Disraeli


What an utterly absurd thing to say. Israel has Nuclear Weapons, so the thought that aggressor (x) might try to militarily destroy Israel is not laughable, but stupid. Seriously there is no threat to Israel from invasion, because any potential adversary knows full well that Israel posesses Nuclear Weapons and is likely to use them to defend itself, thus Israel does not need to supress the Palestinians in order to survive. It is frequently extolled that Israel is frighting for survival, when in fact there is no question that Israel has the right to exist (not according to the UN anyway, nor most of the developed world), thus rather than simply trodding all over world opinion with the mantra "Israel must fight to survive", what the Israeli state should do is come into the fold from it's current isolation.

Benjamin Disraeli exponenciated a policy of "Splendid isolation" for the UK, yet still the UK was sucked into war in the Crimea, war in Europe and it was eventually the wars fought in Europe that Britian participated in that heralded the end of the Briitsh Empire.



Excuse me, do you think this is the dark ages? Conquored the land? I think the UN takes a rather different view of that. Conquored the land, how can an American (assuming that is what you are coming from New York) speak of 'conquering', when if you read the American constitution the first words are "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal", thus the concept of 'conquering' is a fallacy as it negates the equality of the conquored people.



Are you mad? How dare the Israeli government settle land that does not belong to it, how dare it occupy, annex and settle land contrary to edict from the UN. You obviously haven't read the American constitution, which is big on equality, if you had you would realise that subjetation of another people is in fact setting those people to a lesser standing and that is fundamentally contrary to any notions of democracy or equality contained in the constitution.

How can the Jews who were so hated, who had so many of their rights to equality and freedom to persue happiness even contemplate lessening the civil rights of the Palestinians by attempting to as you so aptly put it "conquor" the Palestinian terroritory? How dare Israel lecture the rest of the world on how it is a seething mass of quasi-nazi anti-semitism when it refuses to acknowledge the basic human rights of the Palestinian people.
Rights like the freedom to live without occupation, the freedom to elect representative government that can take actions to better the surrounding environment of the people who elect it. Occupation, annexation and settlement negates these rights fundamentally.

I just don't get it, how much propaganda makes it ok to 'conquor' and settle on someone else's home? How much hatred and loathing is required to rationalise such a thing? How many people does one have to accuse of being a Nazi before no one else's opinion bar the opinion that agrees with your own counts? I really just need to know that.


Of course there is a Peace Partner. The international community has and is offering inumerate times and in innumerate ways to intercede and bring about peace in the Middle East and contrary to popular belief the entire Palestinian nation is not in fact a three million strong Hamas reserve, it is in fact a people just like the people of Israel and it is a people who have been stepped on for a long, long time, but the Palestinian are still people and if you treat them with respect and understanding you will recieve the same in kind.



Now substitute the word Jew for Palestinian and ask yourselves, are the Palestinian people not people too and if you ***** them do they not bleed, if you tickle them do they not laugh and if you wrong them, shall the not revenge?
Quid pro quo.


Yeah that's true, imagine Israel actually used the Nuclear Weapons it posesses, that really would be one huge mistake!



Why because if you are Jewish you are perpaired to cast a blind eye to what Israel does, because when it comes to Israel it's Jews who come first? I'm quite shocked, again that a people who were discriminated against so much throughout the ages can be so racist, pig headed and intransigent as to suggest that one's religion should dicatate one's access to human rights, how utterly ironic.

Slow down, boy! You know it's soooo easy for people so far away from the situation (in your case Ireland) to sit in their ivory towers and cast judgement. I happen to be an Israeli born female and served in the army. Do not preach to me/us about human rights! Jews are at the forefront of human rights. You also forget that we are not just talking about the Palestinians here. We are talking about the surrounding hostile nations Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Egypt (some peace), etc. Why dont they care enough about their own people in the territories to lay down their swords against Israel, forge a lasting peace and then Israel can confidently give up the land! Before that happens, do not ask Israel to commit national suicide. Remember, Disraeli. You cannot battle this one with me. I served in the army you so villify.

I am not saying that Israel aught not to be criticized. But who is doing the criticizing? Hmmm? You quote the "international community." Well, Israel aught not to give a $#@$% about the international community who condemns and casts blame on Israel (Jenin? Remember that debacle? CNN! Jenin Massacre!!! well, your UN finally came out with the report that indeed there was NO massacre, as Israel stipulated.)

You say Israel has nuclear weapons. Frankly I don't see her using them. After all, Disraeli. What would the "world" say?

I also oject to the notion that Jews, because we've been persecuted, aught to feel the pain of others. Well that's what we have liberal Jews for LOL.

You speak from a purely intellectual point of view, but you know what Disraeli? Sometimes there is no illectualizing. Somethimes things are the way they are. Israel has tried for 54 years to stop the carnage. THe Israeli people want peace. THey were willing to give up almost all of the land for peace. Arafat refused. He didn't accept 99%. He wanted 100%. So now what? I resent the fact that you make no mention of the Israeli's who are massacred on a weekly basis. And the carnage goes on. No solutions. Let me make a suggestion to you. Why don't the Arabs accept Israel, commit not to fight her just for the sake of the Palestinians then if Israel does not negotiate a peace settlement then the world can rightfully so condemn her. Hun? Sound like a plan?

[zionist]

Originally posted by NewsGuy


That's nonsense.

And, quote frankly, if Jews would ever commit the atrocities which are committed by the Arabs and other Muslims daily, the world would not react with the same kind of patience and "understanding" that is being shown to the Arab mass-murderers.

But in your fantasy land, in which you apparently delude yourself into thinking that you're some kind of "Saint" because you justify massacres and terrorism against the Jewish people of Israel, things are predictably off kilter.

And on our part, it is not racist at all to point out the facts as they are reported in the media daily.

- It is not racist to criticize Arab and Islamic terrorism.

- It is not racist to oppose the brutal and corrupt regimes of the Arab states, and it is not racist at all

- It is not racist to support the right of the Jewish people to live in our historical homeland, as a free and independent people.

- It is not racist to take Europe to task for its historical -- and present -- record of overwhelming anti-Semitism.


Yes, "Saint", you have landed not on some al Qaeda or radical Marxist or neo-Nazi Euro-babble site, but instead you are here on the Israel Forum. It should come as no surprise to you that people oppose Palestinian terrorism here. And it should come as no surprise to you that many of us know full well that the Palestinian are nothing but squatters occupying parts of the Jewish homeland by force, while conducting a Jihad-genocide against the rest of the Jewish people of Israel.

Sure, you're entitled to have differing opinions and discuss them here. We welcome discussion and debate. But please leave your sanctimonious cheap shots at the forum elsewhere.

But if you can't handle legitimate criticism of Arab and Islamic terrorism, and of the hypocrisy and anti-Semitism that infects much of Europe, then there are plenty of European Islamic, radical Marxist and Neo-Nazi sites that may be a better match for you.

You are my hero! Couldn't have said it any better myself!

[peacelover]

Originally posted by Disraeli


Why because if you are Jewish you are perpaired to cast a blind eye to what Israel does, because when it comes to Israel it's Jews who come first? I'm quite shocked, again that a people who were discriminated against so much throughout the ages can be so racist, pig headed and intransigent as to suggest that one's religion should dicatate one's access to human rights, how utterly ironic.

Very well said, but not all jews are like that - there are some 'self-haters' who disagree with Israeli policy, and there are those who genuinely believe that Israel has never done anything wrong.

By the way, why are you called Disraeli? He's my favourite British PM!

[pacifist]

*Applauds disraeli*

That was incredibly well articulated and full of truth and wisdom, I could never have said it better, or even that well.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by ayesha


Where did you get that from Mediocrates?


I'll dig it up ~saw it recently in a piece commenting on information development in the middle east. the focus item was that net access in much of the middle east is extremely limited. For example in all of SA, out of 22 million people perhaps 50,000 have net access which is like 0.23%

Here they are

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/text/0923undp.htm

http://www.sdnp.undp.org/news/lstarch/msg00913.html

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/Policywatch/policywatch2000/485.htm

I think the crucial point though is the power of grass roots and small social support and rights organization. All over Africa

http://www.aviva.org/africres.htm (this is one of hundreds of indexes like it)

As governments fall apart there is growth in these small networks designed for special purpose social functions, rights, infrastructure, public health and so on. They aren't wasting their time on propaganda and middle class consumer websites. I've been to ajeeb - and while it's nice they could probably be doing something more productive with their time money infrastructure and bandwidth.

[peacelover]

Originally posted by ibrodsky


1. Numerous Palestinian groups, including Yasser Arafat's PLO, published charters that explicitly stated their goal is to replace Israel with an Islamic or Arab state.

Arafat has publically said that his aims are for a two state solution, as shown by document A2 of the Oslo accords


4. Israel offered the Palestinians a state.

Please tell me you don't mean to laughable Camp David 'offer'?


What concessions have Israel's enemies made?

Well, at Oslo Arafat provisionally accepted only 22% of historic Palestine.

I think it is clear Israel doesn't want a 2 state solution any more than Arafat - hence why the settlements keep expanding.

[Mediocrates]

Why because if you are Jewish you are perpaired to cast a blind eye to what Israel does, because when it comes to Israel it's Jews who come first?


Asked and answered your honor, stop badgering the witness.

I'm quite shocked, again that a people who were discriminated against so much throughout the ages can be so racist, pig headed and intransigent as to suggest that one's religion should dicatate one's access to human rights, how utterly ironic.

What I am shocked at is that someone who bleeds human rights can be so picky and tunnel visioned about how they are applied. What is peace if not equitable? Or do we suppose like in a family of several children we ignore the one who can read above his grade level because "oh he'll be all right, just ignore him - all we care about is the basket case."

What you are doing is asking and answering your own questions so I'm not sure what the point of debating it is.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by peacelover
Well, at Oslo Arafat provisionally accepted only 22% of historic Palestine.


This is the new buzzword isn't it? first is was 'ethnic cleansing' and that didn't fly because it was too too over the top.

Then we got apartheid - and that ugh, doesn't fly because frankly most people don't really know WTF the word means.

We always have racist - because HEY ! you don't even need evidence to bring the mobs in.

So now we have 22%

But it's not is it? In fact that's a completely bogus thing. "Original" Palestine is now mostly Jordan. It was given to them, so talk to them about it. The Queen mother is American so I'm sure she'll understand what you're saying. Jordan is 78% of Palestine - the other 22% is Israel. So if you want that then you'll just have to get in your peaceful peacemobiles and kill every last Jew living there. I'm sorry, but that's what it will take.

[searrard]

Originally posted by zionist

Do not preach to me/us about human rights! Jews are at the forefront of human rights.

since when is war and occupation at the fore-front of human rights?


Originally posted by zionist

Why dont they care enough about their own people in the territories to lay down their swords against Israel, forge a lasting peace and then Israel can confidently give up the land! Before that happens, do not ask Israel to commit national suicide. Remember, Disraeli. You cannot battle this one with me. I served in the army you so villify.

Your troop depositions tell a different story, you are so far and ahead of your neighbours to the point that all thats left is terrorism- that last act of a desperate army! national suicide pfft...


Originally posted by zionist

Sometimes there is no illectualizing. Somethimes things are the way they are. Israel has tried for 54 years to stop the carnage. THe Israeli people want peace. THey were willing to give up almost all of the land for peace. Arafat refused. He didn't accept 99%. He wanted 100%. So now what?

You pushed the Palestinians to the breaking point, and then you wonder why students are becoming suicide bombers?


Originally posted by zionist

I resent the fact that you make no mention of the Israeli's who are massacred on a weekly basis. And the carnage goes on. No solutions. Let me make a suggestion to you. Why don't the Arabs accept Israel, commit not to fight her just for the sake of the Palestinians then if Israel does not negotiate a peace settlement then the world can rightfully so condemn her. Hun? Sound like a plan?

What comprimise have you tried?

[danholo]

since when is war and occupation at the fore-front of human rights?

I'm sorry to say, that Arabs started the war with Israel.

zionist probably means that Jews invented the whole notion and the fact is that its true.

[searrard]

I'm sorry to say, that Arabs started the war with Israel.

so that makes everything allright then

so its payback?

[drelan]

zionist probably means that Jews invented the whole notion and the fact is that its true. -- danholo

I'm sorry, but do you mean that Jews invented the whole idea of human rights??? If you actually do, I fear you'll have to back it up with some fact.
I look forward to hearing this.


Also, does it ever occur to anyone that there is Jewish opposition to Israel's treatment of Palestine? That Jews are not wholly unified in each and every opinion? Every jew does not even live is Israel (no!!! you don't say!!!) And the same goes for Palestinians, I am sure that there are many opposed to the sucide attacks.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by drelan



Also, does it ever occur to anyone that there is Jewish opposition to Israel's treatment of Palestine? That Jews are not wholly unified in each and every opinion? Every jew does not even live is Israel (no!!! you don't say!!!) And the same goes for Palestinians, I am sure that there are many opposed to the sucide attacks.


Even if 99.9% of the world was against suicide attacks they would still be a reality and some action would have to be taken against them.

[drelan]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM



Even if 99.9% of the world was against suicide attacks they would still be a reality and some action would have to be taken against them.


true, "some action" would have to be taken against them. But not against those who do not support it. What I am trying to say is that many, many, many times today the IDF seems to be inflicting mass casualties on the Palestinian civillian population "in search of terrorists". I don't doubt Israel's will to protect their own security and peoples, and the fear that they hold of the seemingly rapant banner of "anti-semitism", but I think their methods are counter productive.

Right now, the very existence of a Palestinian nation is so much more in threat than the existance of an Israeli one. I just simply wish that those in charge of (and in support of) Israel's current tactics would attatch some compassion to their fears, and see that others are suffering just as much, if not more right now.

Furthermore, I have to say that I think the possiblility of destroying the state of Israel right now is nearly impossible. Israel is backed by the US, and would most likely be backed also by the UN if they came under serious threat. I also question whether the dislike of Israel in the Arab world is a result purely of indoctrination, or one of "injustice". How many Arab and Palestinian peoples were evicted off their land at the creation of the Jewish state? Does anyone know? Could this be a possible reason for the early hostilities towards Israel?

Also, to those in the US on this thread who say to others that they don't realize certain things as they live abroad, is the same not true for you? Do you see the entire conflict living in a country where the administration seems poised to attack anything seriously affecting its interests? Is the media more objective down there (where much of the media is owned by corporations)? Than the CBC up here in Canada, for example?
This confuses me, how much of the support for Israel on this form is from the US, and the questions against it from the rest of the world.

But then again, much confuses me today.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by drelan

true, "some action" would have to be taken against them. But not against those who do not support it. What I am trying to say is that many, many, many times today the IDF seems to be inflicting mass casualties on the Palestinian civillian population "in search of terrorists". I don't doubt Israel's will to protect their own security and peoples, and the fear that they hold of the seemingly rapant banner of "anti-semitism", but I think their methods are counter productive.

You should try listening to yourself sometime. You see Israel inflicting "mass casualties" but not a word about Palestinians purposely inflicting mass casualties. You say "in search of terrorists" as if there is doubt about what... whether there really are Palestinian terrorists?

And after Palestinian groups with names like Hamas and Islamic Jihad blow up a busload of Jews you mock us for believing anti-semitism could have have anything to do with. Your final conclusion regarding a society that breeds homicide bombers and dances in the street when Jews are killed? Israel's actions are "counter-productive."


Right now, the very existence of a Palestinian nation is so much more in threat than the existance of an Israeli one. I just simply wish that those in charge of (and in support of) Israel's current tactics would attatch some compassion to their fears, and see that others are suffering just as much, if not more right now.

Yes, with five Jewish nations and 200 million Jews ganging up on a few million Palestinians who are just trying to live in peace, it really is unfair.

I'm still waiting for you or any Palestinian supporter to tell my why no one demanded a "Palestinian state" prior to 1967. Could it be that the Palestinians are really Jordanians and Egyptians? Could it be that Jordan is the Palestinian state? Do any of you even know that the bulk of Palestine is now Jordan?


Furthermore, I have to say that I think the possiblility of destroying the state of Israel right now is nearly impossible. Israel is backed by the US, and would most likely be backed also by the UN if they came under serious threat. I also question whether the dislike of Israel in the Arab world is a result purely of indoctrination, or one of "injustice". How many Arab and Palestinian peoples were evicted off their land at the creation of the Jewish state? Does anyone know? Could this be a possible reason for the early hostilities towards Israel?

Nonsense. Israel is a tiny country. 20% of her population is Arab. She is surrounded by extremely hostile and belligerent Arab states, all run by dictators. She is vastly outnumbered, vastly outgunned, and has been under attack constantly since her birth.

The Arab world is obsessed with destroying Israel. They are so obsessed that a good number of them are willing to blow themselves up to accomplish it.

Israel exists today because she has fought hard and courageously.


Also, to those in the US on this thread who say to others that they don't realize certain things as they live abroad, is the same not true for you? Do you see the entire conflict living in a country where the administration seems poised to attack anything seriously affecting its interests? Is the media more objective down there (where much of the media is owned by corporations)? Than the CBC up here in Canada, for example?
This confuses me, how much of the support for Israel on this form is from the US, and the questions against it from the rest of the world.

Do you imagine that what is right is determined by who thinks it and not the facts?

[Dan 5]

Im from Ireland also.

Disraeli is pretty insistent that talking is the only way to peace and "attest" to this, presumeably based on his Irishness- and thus apparently knowledge of the NI, a fine example of a negotiated settlement with international mediation thrown in.

Some points which mightnt be well known, Disraeli forgot to mention them.

-Whilst murders in Northern Ireland have gone down (good thing) the actual level of violence has increased, maimings, evictions/ethnic cleansing, intimidation are all up and tension between the two communities is still incredibly high in many areas ( especially working class areas which is where much of the terrorist groups operate from) .... To the point where 5 and 6 year old school girls required a ludicrous security prescence to get to their school ( it lay on the other side of the wrong sort of estate) every morning - to continue the point somebody decided theyd make a brave politcal point by chucking a home made "grenade" at them. The situation has since been "resolved" - but the mutual bitterness "hasnt gone away you know" to paraphrase a leader of a terrorist/political group regarding the prospects of infamous terrorist group in "peacetime".

-Terrorist groups still continue their activities ( In fact the police are so busy tracking them that they cant deal with ordinairy crime, they simply dont have the manpower), Loyalist groups are feuding amongst themselves over control of the drugs industry ( organised, heavily armed groups tend to find work somehow), The IRA seems to be exporting its bomb making expertise abroad - certain Colombian "revolutionaries" in particular. Oh, and the largest single atrocity, Omagh, where 28 people were murdered by a republican splinter group who refused to accept the deal, occured during the peace.

-And because of a combination of all of the above and the rise of hardliners capitalising on peoples wholly reasonable fears of the above the largest party of the pro british faction is going to collapse the assembly shortly by withdrawing unless the IRA deccommissons its weapons and disbands etc etc. Dont think that moderates will fill the vacumn created by their withdrawal- these guys *are* the moderates:(

Just an example of a negotiated settlement and the troubles associated with it. Theyre based on "forgetting" critical issues, sweeping them under the carpet. They come with a hell of a lot of problems, and terrorist groups seem to either ignore them- or continue to operate whilst branching out into other areas.

However it is better than before, less people are being killed. However if some palestinian terrorist splinter group was to take the "into the sea" line and continue their war ( likely, not likely? ) could the Israelis resist the urge to punish the guilty parties ( i.e. Jennins, Ramallahs, etc etc) especially if the Palestinians seemed slow or reluctant to do so ( As an example, in the case of Omagh the mainstream republicans who were on ceasefire refused to assist the investigation in any way whatsoever - despite the families of the dead begging their leadership to give them justice)?

That problem is avoided in NI cos its one state- if the British dont catch the Omagh terrorists they have only themselves to blame ( as it stand I think only one of the terrorists has been jailed, by Irish police - he was traced by his mobile if a i remember correctly). for Israel a politician can quite easily blame the Palestinians and start taking the line if you wont catch them, we will- and then the whole cycle begins again.

For the above reasons Im not very confident that a lasting peace settlement is possible. Best that can be hoped for imho is for a buffer zone to be created and breathing space allowed for.

Oh, and whilst I believe the Israelis are perfectly entitled to kill terrorists, many Europeans consider the IDF to be just as much terrorists because they level civillian housing and they seem to have absolutely no concern for the welfare of Palestinians in general. I cannot recall a single media piece which portrayed the IDF in a positive light, quite the opposite - maybe Israeli papers are full of "IDF soldier saves Palestinian toddler from burning building" stories but they dont seem to be printed here.

The Palestinians are winning the war for hearts and minds hands down right now - it seems very likely in that case that international mediation would tend to favour them. People see rock throwing kids versus tanks. They read about Palestinian families whove lost loved ones due to the IDF, but they dont read about Israeli families who lost loved ones to suicide bombers. The Israelis dont seem to help themselves that much by continuing to push ahead with settlement schemes. Incidents such as that Palestinian boy who was caught in crossfire with his father very early in the current violence are given massive publicity whilst the suicide bombing of a children birthday party in Israel is glossed over and quickly forgotten by the media.

That might explain the rather negative attitude some Europeans have regarding Israel.

[NewsGuy]

Very true and very insightful post.


Thank you, Dan, for bringing this perspective.

[drelan]

Originally posted by Dan 5
could the Israelis resist the urge to punish the guilty parties ( i.e. Jennins, Ramallahs, etc etc) especially if the Palestinians seemed slow or reluctant to do so

What of the Israeli extremists who are not punished by their government?


Also, The main thing I question is not Israel's right to self-defence, but the extent and methods in which they do so. The occupation of Palestinian territories, for example, has dramatically increased unemployment, poverty, and disease. Would this not provide a fodder for the anti-Israeli sentiment? Palestinian terror organizations have likely gained increased support since. Many Palestinians may be simply supporting them now, not for the anhilalation of Israel, but because they seem to be Palestine's only Defense Force (and also a counter-productive one).

For history, the land occupied now by Israel (all parts of Israel, the WB and GS) was promised to be both an independant Palestinian Nation, and a Jewish homeland. It was decided that the Jews should recieve it as a national homeland. However, it was promised to the Palestinians first.

Also, and ironically so, was it not the Jews who were some of the first to use modern-day terrorism for their own political aims? in order to establish a Jewish homeland? Didn't they pressure the British to do so?

If you could describe Israels actions today as self defence, than why can't you describe the Arab reaction to the creation of the Jesish state? couldn't it also be described as self-defense?

There are many questions, but few answers.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by drelan


What of the Israeli extremists who are not punished by their government?

Please tell us who you are talking about. Are you suggesting there are Israeli groups similar to Hamas?


Also, The main thing I question is not Israel's right to self-defence, but the extent and methods in which they do so. The occupation of Palestinian territories, for example, has dramatically increased unemployment, poverty, and disease. Would this not provide a fodder for the anti-Israeli sentiment? Palestinian terror organizations have likely gained increased support since. Many Palestinians may be simply supporting them now, not for the anhilalation of Israel, but because they seem to be Palestine's only Defense Force (and also a counter-productive one).

Israel never occupied "Palestinian territories." A group of Arab countries ganged up and vowed to destroy Israel. The 1967 war began when Egypt cut off Israel's shipping lanes. The land Israel captured was Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian.

Palestine was Rome's Jewish colony. There never was an independent Arab state called "Palestine." The original Palestinians were Jews.

Jordan and Egypt made peace with Israel but did not demand all of their land back. Both understood there was a price to be paid for attacking Israel.

Israel, at its discretion, has decided not to annex the entire West Bank and Gaza, instead holding these areas to provide defensible borders (e.g., the Jordan river) and as a bargaining chip if and when the Arab nations are truly ready for peace.

The idea that terrorists who mass murder teenage girls waiting to get into a disco in Tel Aviv constitute a "defense force" is preposterous. They are, in the words of General Zinni, simply engaged in the "most profound evil."


For history, the land occupied now by Israel (all parts of Israel, the WB and GS) was promised to be both an independant Palestinian Nation, and a Jewish homeland. It was decided that the Jews should recieve it as a national homeland. However, it was promised to the Palestinians first.

This is total nonsense. Please tell us: who promised all of Palestine to the Arabs?

The original Palestine was what are now Jordan, Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Look at a map. The majority of this land was given to the Arabs -- it's called Jordan. The problem is that the Arabs demand 100% of the land, denying roughly 40% of the population in the area the right to self-determination.


Also, and ironically so, was it not the Jews who were some of the first to use modern-day terrorism for their own political aims? in order to establish a Jewish homeland? Didn't they pressure the British to do so?

More falsehood. There were a very few incidents in the 1930s and 40s. The one most often cited by apologists for Arab terrorism was the bombing of the King David Hotel. The hotel was a military HQ for the British. The Jews called and warned the hotel would be blown up. The British chose to ignore the warning.


If you could describe Israels actions today as self defence, than why can't you describe the Arab reaction to the creation of the Jesish state? couldn't it also be described as self-defense?

There are many questions, but few answers.

Actually, these are lies, half-truths, and distortions.

But rather than going over them again and again, perhaps you should consider a simple fact: there are 5 million Jews in the Middle East who are the majority in a small area along the coast. They sought self-determination. They never demanded that anyone leave or that any other group forfeit its rights.

The mainstream Arab view has been totally implacable: no Israel, no way, not ever. It has not mattered to them that Jews were the overwhelming majority on the land they claimed for their state. It didn't matter to them that Jews had lived there continuously for 3,000 years. It didn't matter that the Arabs were given most of Palestine, all of which was promised to the Jews and never promised to the Arabs.

[drelan]

The Palestine problem became an international issue towards the end of the First World War with the disintegration of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Palestine was among the several former Ottoman Arab territories which were placed under the administration of Great Britain under the Mandates System adopted by the League of Nations pursuant to the League's Covenant (Article 22) .

All but one of these Mandated Territories became fully independent States, as anticipated. The exception was Palestine where, instead of being limited to "the rendering of administrative assistance and advice" the Mandate had as a primary objective the implementation of the "Balfour Declaration" issued by the British Government in 1917, expressing support for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people".

During the years of the Palestine Mandate, from 1922 to 1947, large-scale Jewish immigration from abroad, mainly from Eastern Europe took place, the numbers swelling in the 1930s with the notorious Nazi persecution of Jewish populations. Palestinian demands for independence and resistance to Jewish immigration led to a rebellion in 1937, followed by continuing terrorism and violence from both sides during and immediately after World War II. Great Britain tried to implement various formulas to bring independence to a land ravaged by violence. In 1947, Great Britain in frustration turned the problem over to the United Nations.

After looking at various alternatives, the UN proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947). One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war expanded to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine. Israel also occupied the larger part of Jerusalem. Over half the indigenous Palestinian population fled or were expelled. Jordan and Egypt occupied the other parts of the territory assigned by the partition resolution to the Palestinian Arab State which did not come into being.

In the 1967 war, Israel occupied the remaining territory of Palestine, until then under Jordanian and Egyptian control (the West Bank and Gaza Strip). This included the remaining part of Jerusalem, which was subsequently annexed by Israel. The war brought about a second exodus of Palestinians, estimated at half a million. Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 called on Israel to withdraw from territories it had occupied in the 1967 conflict.

In 1974, the General Assembly reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty, and to return. The following year, the General Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. The General Assembly conferred on the PLO the status of observer in the Assembly and in other international conferences held under United Nations auspices.

Events on the ground, however, remained on a negative course. In June 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon with the declared intention to eliminate the PLO. A cease-fire was arranged. PLO troops withdrew from Beirut and were transferred to neighboring countries after guarantees of safety were provided for thousands of Palestinian refugees left behind. Subsequently, a large-scale massacre of refugees took place in the camps of Sabra and Shatila.

In September 1983, the International Conference on the Question of Palestine, which was widely attended, adopted inter alia the Geneva Declaration containing the following principles: the need to oppose and reject the establishment of settlements in the occupied territory and actions taken by Israel to change the status of Jerusalem, the right of all States in the region to existence within secure and internationally recognized boundaries, with justice and security for all the people, and the attainment of the legitimate, inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.

In December 1987, a mass uprising against the Israeli occupation began in the occupied Palestinian territory (the intifadah). Methods used by the Israeli forces during the uprising resulted in mass injuries and heavy loss of life among the civilian Palestinian population.

A Peace Conference on the Middle East was convened in Madrid on 30 October 1991, with the aim of achieving a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement through direct negotiations along 2 tracks: between Israel and the Arab States, and between Israel and the Palestinians, based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) (the "land for peace" formula). A series of subsequent negotiations culminated in the mutual recognition between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian People, and the signing by the two parties of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements in Washington, D.C., on 13 September 1993, as well as the subsequent implementation agreements, which led to several other positive developments, such as the partial withdrawal of Israeli forces, the elections to the Palestinian Council and the presidency of the Palestinian Authority, the partial release of prisoners and the establishment of a functioning administration in the areas under Palestinian self-rule. The involvement of the United Nations has been essential to the peace process, both as the guardian of international legitimacy and in the mobilization and provision of international assistance.

The UN General Assembly welcomed the Declaration of Principles as an important step forward. The Assembly also reaffirmed that "the United Nations has a permanent responsibility with respect to the question of Palestine until the question is resolved in all its aspects in a satisfactory manner in accordance with international legitimacy."

During the past years, there has been increasing concern at the stalemate in the peace negotiations. The General Assembly, particularly the Assembly’s Tenth Emergency Special Session, was called upon to deal with the deteriorating situation in the occupied Palestinian territory. There has been increasing alarm at acts of violence against civilians, the position and actions of the Government of Israel with regard to Jerusalem, the expansion of settlements, land confiscation and punitive collective measures which were seriously undermining the peace efforts.


In an effort to place us on the same historical page, this was taken from http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

[Mediocrates]

And your point is what, exactly?

[drelan]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
And your point is what, exactly?

my point is to have an unbiased historical account so that we can realize certain things. I thought it would be more effective to copy & paste that than to explain something you might immediatly dismiss as biased, and pro-Palestinian

but, if you must know what I meant to point out...


Palestine was among the several former Ottoman Arab territories which were placed under the administration of Great Britain under the Mandates System adopted by the League of Nations pursuant to the League's Covenant...
--Palestine was an Arab territory for a time, and with it's native Palestinians, was to be given self-determination (for the jews and palestinians)


During the years of the Palestine Mandate, from 1922 to 1947, large-scale Jewish immigration from abroad, mainly from Eastern Europe took place, the numbers swelling in the 1930s with the notorious Nazi persecution of Jewish populations. Palestinian demands for independence and resistance to Jewish immigration led to a rebellion in 1937, followed by continuing terrorism and violence from both sides during and immediately after World War II.
--There was Jewish immigration to Palestine, and resistance to this from the arabs WHO WERE LIVING THERE. Also, both sides commited terrorism


After looking at various alternatives, the UN proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947). One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war expanded to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine. Israel also occupied the larger part of Jerusalem. Over half the indigenous Palestinian population fled or were expelled. Jordan and Egypt occupied the other parts of the territory assigned by the partition resolution to the Palestinian Arab State which did not come into being.


In the 1967 war, Israel occupied the remaining territory of Palestine, until then under Jordanian and Egyptian control (the West Bank and Gaza Strip). This included the remaining part of Jerusalem, which was subsequently annexed by Israel. The war brought about a second exodus of Palestinians, estimated at half a million. Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 called on Israel to withdraw from territories it had occupied in the 1967 conflict.
--Yes, Israel occupied land, and displaced Palestinians.


In 1974, the General Assembly reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty, and to return.
--Yes, even Palestinians have rights.


Events on the ground, however, remained on a negative course. In June 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon with the declared intention to eliminate the PLO. A cease-fire was arranged. PLO troops withdrew from Beirut and were transferred to neighboring countries after guarantees of safety were provided for thousands of Palestinian refugees left behind. Subsequently, a large-scale massacre of refugees took place in the camps of Sabra and Shatila.
--I never knew that Palestinian refugees were part of the PLO.


In December 1987, a mass uprising against the Israeli occupation began in the occupied Palestinian territory (the intifadah). Methods used by the Israeli forces during the uprising resulted in mass injuries and heavy loss of life among the civilian Palestinian population.
--Seems like a lot of self-defence by the IDF, no? I thought that self-determination was everyones right (but call me an idealist).


During the past years, there has been increasing concern at the stalemate in the peace negotiations. The General Assembly, particularly the Assembly’s Tenth Emergency Special Session, was called upon to deal with the deteriorating situation in the occupied Palestinian territory. There has been increasing alarm at acts of violence against civilians, the position and actions of the Government of Israel with regard to Jerusalem, the expansion of settlements, land confiscation and punitive collective measures which were seriously undermining the peace efforts.

[Mediocrates]

oh ok thanks for that clarification. unbiased means you get on a soapbox and pose empty rhetoric as fact guised as a question and dare someone else to refute it.

gotcha.

[drelan]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
oh ok thanks for that clarification. unbiased means you get on a soapbox and pose empty rhetoric as fact guised as a question and dare someone else to refute it.

gotcha.

no no, sorry I confused you there. The account from the UN is unbiased. With all the sarcasm I'm hearing, and all the anti-palestinian statements, I'm honestly having a diffucult time staying unbiased. My "empty rhetoric as fact guised as a question", as you call it, was my own. I'm just a bit frustrated with this discussion and mostly this situation. That's where my questions came from. But since you brought them up, would you like to try to refute them???

I dare you.

[Dan 5]

What of the Israeli extremists who are not punished by their government?

The point i made that you referred to was a potential ( and likely imo) incident that would occur, even in a declared peace. Potentially yes, Israeli extremists with a manifest destiny view of the middle east and the old Palestine could attempt to terrorise the Palestinians- especially if the peace led to a reduction or even abandonment of settlements etc. The only incident Ive heard of though was a plot by some group to bomb a Palestinian school. The group planning it were detected and captured by the Israeli law enforcement as I understand it and Ive never heard of any similar incident since. I cant really speculate on what you mean after that....


Also, The main thing I question is not Israel's right to self-defence, but the extent and methods in which they do so. The occupation of Palestinian territories, for example, has dramatically increased unemployment, poverty, and disease. Would this not provide a fodder for the anti-Israeli sentiment?

And Id agree with you- I dont believe that the methods the Israelis employ are wholly benign but as I understand it ( imperfectly I freely admit - happy to learn though) anti-Israeli sentiment predates the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Whilst the occupation can only serve to increase such sentiment the Israelis face the same problem the Americans had in the latter stages of Vietnam- How to disengage without displaying weakness that might encourgage further attacks- if only from the ultra fanatical splinter groups that will most likely appear even if Israel satisfies 99% of Palestinian demands.


If you could describe Israels actions today as self defence, than why can't you describe the Arab reaction to the creation of the Jesish state? couldn't it also be described as self-defense?

Sure, a war is a war - regardless of the rights and wrongs of the actual disagreement people die and bad stuff happens. Thats not to be sought after but it is a reality of history and conflict. However the terrorists (by definition) are targeting the civillian population. Suicide bombers are not terrorists because they kill themselves in their attacks, theyre terrorists because they target civillians, not milatary targets such as soldiers, tanks, bases, etc etc. Targeting civillians ( especially outside of the occupied terretories) is not self defence. The IDF seems to have little regard for the safty of Palestinian civillians when theyre carrying out their operations- BUT, they do not seem to target the civillian population either. A small distinction maybe, but an important one.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by drelan


no no, sorry I confused you there. The account from the UN is unbiased. With all the sarcasm I'm hearing, and all the anti-palestinian statements, I'm honestly having a diffucult time staying unbiased. My "empty rhetoric as fact guised as a question", as you call it, was my own. I'm just a bit frustrated with this discussion and mostly this situation. That's where my questions came from. But since you brought them up, would you like to try to refute them???

I dare you.

Here is where we differ then. All discussion starts with "The UN said such and such.... and I don't really understand why those stiff necked people just don't obey..."

Here is my frustration

Over 30% of all resolutions ever passed by the UN since its inception have been against Israel. 30% of all acitivity of the UN in the legal forum is directed against one country out of over 127 for over 50 years. Now these are the conclusions you can draw

They are worst country since the invention of the wheel - and many posters here would agree with that.

-or-

it's a rigged game.

I'll give you a micro example in my own life. I went to traffic court last week and I was the ONLY person who did not work there who spoke English. My community is maybe 1/8th Latino yet almost everyone who gets a moving violation is Latino. they law is the law, all must obey - no argument there.

But we have thrown the concept of justice and equity out the window. That is the UN and it's sanctions. And please understand there were HUNDREDS of resolutions passed against Israel before 1967. Scores more after 1967, Scores more after Oslo. In all the world and there are quite a few doozies Israel is the thorn in the paw of the UN.

Starvation, war, genocide, AIDS, conflict diamonds, landmines, malaria, illiteracy, women's rights, orphans, endless desolation where billions of people live in filth on less than 2 dollars a day, where arab countries still have slavery, where permanent ethnic war is the status quo for most of sub saharan Africa and for the Horn of Africa, where US medical troops in Afghanistan are seeing diseases from the Bible, like plague, where Serbians operated death camps like Omarska.

Yet we can rely on the UN and its obsessive compulsion and it's arab nation sponsored rhetoric, and it is sponsored by them - resolutions against Israel don't originate from South America or North America or Asia or even Europe for the most part.

So every time someone comes to me spouting UN this and UN that to me it's parrot talk. It's just a tape loop of hate repeated endlessly by nations who can barely dig themselves out of the Stone Age and they hate the one cave in their neighborhood with fire and chicken soup.

[danholo]

Great point made Mediocrates. Couldn't have said it better or at all my self. :cool:

[drelan]

Originally posted by Mediocrates


Here is where we differ then. All discussion starts with "The UN said such and such.... and I don't really understand why those stiff necked people just don't obey..."

Here is my frustration

Over 30% of all resolutions ever passed by the UN since its inception have been against Israel. 30% of all acitivity of the UN in the legal forum is directed against one country out of over 127 for over 50 years. Now these are the conclusions you can draw

They are worst country since the invention of the wheel - and many posters here would agree with that.

-or-

it's a rigged game.

I'll give you a micro example in my own life. I went to traffic court last week and I was the ONLY person who did not work there who spoke English. My community is maybe 1/8th Latino yet almost everyone who gets a moving violation is Latino. they law is the law, all must obey - no argument there.

But we have thrown the concept of justice and equity out the window. That is the UN and it's sanctions. And please understand there were HUNDREDS of resolutions passed against Israel before 1967. Scores more after 1967, Scores more after Oslo. In all the world and there are quite a few doozies Israel is the thorn in the paw of the UN.

Starvation, war, genocide, AIDS, conflict diamonds, landmines, malaria, illiteracy, women's rights, orphans, endless desolation where billions of people live in filth on less than 2 dollars a day, where arab countries still have slavery, where permanent ethnic war is the status quo for most of sub saharan Africa and for the Horn of Africa, where US medical troops in Afghanistan are seeing diseases from the Bible, like plague, where Serbians operated death camps like Omarska.

Yet we can rely on the UN and its obsessive compulsion and it's arab nation sponsored rhetoric, and it is sponsored by them - resolutions against Israel don't originate from South America or North America or Asia or even Europe for the most part.

So every time someone comes to me spouting UN this and UN that to me it's parrot talk. It's just a tape loop of hate repeated endlessly by nations who can barely dig themselves out of the Stone Age and they hate the one cave in their neighborhood with fire and chicken soup.


okay, okay. I can see your point. We can't treat the UN like a perfect, un-biased savior. 30%? wow, are you sure? and even though that seems like a heck of a lot (if fact probably too much), I think there may be some credibility. For one, I can't see what hidden motives the UN would have in taking a side. They don't seem to be largely backed by anyone (and on this I may be wrong), but they operate on a budget smaller than that of the New York Fire Department. For example... you may have heard of MSF (Medecins Sans Frontiers or Doctors Without Borders in english) who are a non-biased, independant humanitarian releif organization. For the last two years or so they have been in the middle-east, but they have not helped out in Israel. They have been accused of being pro-Palestinian, but they refute it by saying that they have offered their assistance to the Israeli authorities, but have been gracefully told that there is no need in Israel. Israel seems to be a first-world country, in no need of humanitarian assistance. Yes, I definatly agree that the suicide bombings in Jerusalem are horrific, just as 9/11 was, but I stress yet again that the point where I object and disagree is with the war that both the US and Israel are leading against terrorism, I think that both countries have the wrong strategy. I think the point at which most of the Western world objects is in seeing first world countries (namely Israel and the US, in this circumstance) bombing, and tearing apart third-world countries (namely Palestine and Afghanistan, and perhaps more) and maiming the civillian population.

Not many think that terrorism is a smart tactic, but the ways in which Israel and the US are trying to root it out seems largely innefective, and counter-productive. It's a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye, a civillian for a civillian, and I'm afraid it seems that many people don't think this a just solution anymore.

Perhaps this is where Israel is losing support, a nation for a civillian. The scales do not seem even on this scale of justice.

[freke]

The UN argument needs a little clarification. According to a very pro-Israeli site - http://christianactionforisrael.org/un/record.html - betweeen 1946 and 1989 29% of UN security council resolutions concerned Israel. 42% of these were "neutral or balanced", with 54% being perceived critical of Israel. So, that's less than 15% of UN security council resolutions have been in any way critical of Israel.

The figures for the general assembly (the one with no power) are more confused on that site, so I will overlook them for now.

Now why has Israel been "picked on" in this way less extreme way? Mediocrates and others suggest anti-semitism, but this implies that all UN resolutions are in some way unfair.

Maybe sometimes these resolutions were unfair, sometimes it wasn't. Obviously it depends on your view, but it would be ridiculous to say all the resolutions were fair or unfair.

The UN and Israel have had a close bond, one that suggests another reason for the prevalence of UN resolutions. It was a UN resolution that was part of the creation of Israel, so the UN has been used as the main forum for international discussion of Israel. This is a suggestion, not an assertion, but one that seems to fit.

During the Cold War (when these figures come from) most international disputes were not handled via the UN, they were mediated through high-level brinkmanship or somesuch from the US and USSR (and their intermediaries). The UN was largely irrelevant to the Cold War. Only non-Cold War disputes during this time were seen to be relevant to the UN forum - Cyprus, Israel etc. With the US, the USSR and the PRC having vetoes in the security council, any Cold War related item would not be passed.

So there are some other reasons to see the figures and not necessarily make the same conclusions as mediocrates and ibrodsky.

[Mediocrates]

drelan - I don't know an awful lot about MSF but I do know about Magan David Olam - the "Jewish" red cross. Which has been routinely denied membership into the international red cross organization made up of local red cross and red crescent oraganizations. That is, there is a world wide organization that has routinely denied membership to one organization and that organization is Jewish. The officical reason given is that the symbol is neither a cross nor a crescent therefore it's too confusing.

The American President of the Red cross, one back from the current resigned under pressure to drop her advocacy to get the international red cross organization to accept MDO (Magan David Olam).

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by freke
The UN argument needs a little clarification.

So there are some other reasons to see the figures and not necessarily make the same conclusions as mediocrates and ibrodsky.


But it's not clear that you've made any. So what are they?

[freke]

Are you on drugs Medio? That's the second time you've posted something decidedly odd (on the other board you go on about my position re the PRC when I've never mentioned it ...)

Maybe it's old age. Maybe you're Ronnie Reagan!

Anyway, the four non-anti-semitic reasons why the UN Security Council may have passed 29% of its resolutions with regard to Israel are:

- "only" 54% of these resolutions could be considered critical of Israel.
- somtimes these resolutions may actually have been fair, for it would be ridiculous to state that all were unfair and none were fair.
- the UN and Israel have a close link
- the Cold War prevented many other security council resolutions from being passed.

Are we listening at the back?

[Mediocrates]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by freke

The four non-anti-semitic reasons why the UN Security Council may have passed 29% of its resolutions with regard to Israel are:

- "only" 54% of these resolutions could be considered critical of Israel.

According to who, the people making them?

somtimes these resolutions may actually have been fair, for it would be ridiculous to state that all were unfair and none were fair.

point to one then

the UN and Israel have a close link

clearly, it's to excoriate them

the Cold War prevented many other security council resolutions from being passed.


You can't prove the non existance of something.

[freke]

Golly, it's like banging my head against a brick wall with you.

The 54% figure comes from this site here: http://christianactionforisrael.org/un/record.html an organisation whose goals are to:

- Counter the increasing proliferation of destructive anti-semitism and anti-Israel misinformation, expose the prevailing Anti-Israel bias in mainstream media.

- Expose and counter Holocaust denial and revisionism.

- Support just Jewish causes, combat wrongful treatment of Jews and hostility towards the modern state of Israel and its' still chosen people as God moves to fulfil their destiny according to His covenant with them as a people.

- Expand Christian-Jewish dialogue in the broadest sense in order to improve the relationship between Christians and Jews, but also between Church and Synagogue, emphasizing Christian repentance, the purging of anti-Jewish attitudes and the false "Replacement" theology rampant throughout Christian teachings.

- Continue and further the good work done by repentant Christian groups in Europe resulting from the 1934 "Barmen Declaration" by the German Evangelical "Confessing Church", the post-WW2 1980 "Declaration of the Rheinland Synod of the German Evangelical Church", and others, whereby past Christian attitudes and teaching were fundamentally changed in reference to the Jewish people.

On the second point, are you seriously saying that every single one of the resolutions against Israel are unfair? That Israel has never done anything wrong?

The UN and Israel have a close link because one of the UN's first acts was the Truman sponsored resolution to establish Israel, which is part of Israel's creation story.

With a veto in the security council, there was no way that any resolution critical of the USSR, US, China, France or Britain can be passed. This is a fact. Another fact is that most of the biggest foreign policy issues during 1946 and 1989 (the period the figures are from) concerned one or more of these five countries. Your statement: "you can't prove the non-existence of something" may be true, but is irrelevant within context.

[Mediocrates]

Summary
Security Council:
175 Total Resolutions
74 Neutral
4 Against the perceived interests of an Arab state or body
97 Against Israel
General Assembly:
Cumulative Number of Votes cast with/for Israel: 7,938.
Cumulative Number of Votes cast against Israel: 55,642.
Detail
SECURITY COUNCIL:
1946-89
Frequency:

Since the Council first convened in 1946, at least one Arab state sat on it in 39 of the body's first 43 years. Israel never sat on the Council. From December 1947, when the ?Palestine Question? first appeared on its agenda, to 1989, the Council held 2,682 meetings of which 747 (26%) were devoted to the Arab-Israeli conflict. During this period, the Council passed 605 resolutions of which 175 (29%) concerned this conflict.

Balance or Tilt:

Of these 175, 74 (42%) may be labeled neutral or balanced. Of the remaining 101, 4 (4%) criticized or opposed the actions, or judged against, the perceived interests of an Arab state or body.Ninety-seven resolutions (96%) were critical, or opposed the actions, or judged against the perceived interests of Israel. The last time a resolution passed the Security Council whose major thrust criticized Arab actions was on September 1, 1949.

Requests:

Between 1947 and 1989, the Council "called upon," "demanded," "requested" etc. Israel to "comply," "desist," "refrain" etc. 123 times. An Arab state, states or body was "called upon" "ordered" "requested" 65 times, or 47% less.

Specificity:

In these requests, Israel was explicitly named 105 times. References to Arab states were usually implicit, as in "...the parties concerned". An Arab state was identified by name 12 times.

Expressions:

The Council expressed its "concern," "grave concern," "regret," "deep regrets," "shock" etc. about Israeli actions 31 times. Regarding Arab actions, the Council never expressed negative sentiments.

Condemnations:

The Council "condemned, "censured," "deplored," "strongly deplored" etc. Israel 49 times. The Council never "condemned," "censured," "deplored" etc. the Arabs.

Warnings:

The Council "warned," "solemnly warned" etc. Israel 7 times. The Council never warned the Arabs.The above data concern the entire post-war period until 1989, but by isolating the period June 1967-1989, the numbers rise into even starker relief.

1967-89

Frequency:

The Council held 1,517 meetings. Of these 459 (30%) were devoted to the Arab-Israeli conflict.402 resolutions were passed. Of these, 131 (33%) concerned the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Balance or Tilt of U.N. resolutions:

Neutral, Of these 131, 43 (33%) were neutral. Of the remaining 88, all (100%) criticized or opposed the actions, or judged against the interests of Israel. 0 resolutions criticized or opposed the actions, or judged against the perceived interests of an Arab state or body, or the PLO (founded by the Arab League in 1964).

Requests:

The Council "called upon," "demanded," "ordered" etc. Israel to "comply," "desist," "refrain" 83 times. The Council "called upon," "requested" etc. an Arab state 29 times, 65% less. The Council never "demanded," "ordered" etc. the PLO to do or stop doing anything.

Expressions:

The Council expressed its "concern," "grave concern," "deep regrets." "shock" etc. regarding Israel"s actions 28 times. The Council never expressed negative sentiments regarding either any Arab state or the PLO.

Condemnations:

The Council "condemned," "censured," "deplored" Israel 43 times. No Arab state or group was ever condemned.

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY:
The labor of the Assembly, the larger if less potent U.N. chamber, on the other hand, makes the above numbers testimony to the power and moderating influence of the United States in the Security Council, whose numbers now, by contrast, will seem in retrospect only mildly anti-Israel.
1947-89

Number of Resolutions or Resolution Parts Voted On : 690

Balance or Tilt: Of these, 205 (30%) were neutral. Of these, 64 (9%) were adopted without a vote, without objection or by consensus. 18 (3%) were adopted unanimously. Thus the adjusted number of balanced resolutions: 123 (18%)

Resolutions against Israel"s desires: 429 (62%)

Resolutions against Arab desires: 56 (8%).

Of the 56 votes not to the Arabs" liking, 49 concerned the establishment or financing of peace-keeping forces. Of the remaining 7, one concerned inviting the Jewish Agency for Palestine to address the General Assembly (May 1947); 1 concerned the Partition Plan (November 1947); 1 concerned establishing a trusteeship for Jerusalem; 3 concerned refugees (1948); 1 protested admitting Israel as a member to the UN. Discounting the 49 votes concerning peace-keeping forces, the last anti-Arab vote of the General Assembly was in May 1949.

Requests:

The Arabs were "called upon" to "comply," "desist," "refrain" etc. 4 times. Israel was "demanded," "ordered" etc. to do General Assembly bidding 305 times.

Expressions:

The Assembly expressed its "concern," "grave concern," "anxiety" etc. about Israeli policies or actions 179 times. The General Assembly expressed itself in similar terms about Arab policies or actions 0 times.

Condemnations:

Israel was "condemned," "vigorously condemned," "strongly condemned," "deplored," "strongly deplored", "censured," "denounced" by the General Assembly 321 times. The Arabs were condemned 0 times.

Cumulative Number of Votes cast with/for Israel: 7,938.

Cumulative Number of Votes cast against Israel: 55,642.

Arutz 7

[Mediocrates]

the numbers speak louder than the qualifications.

[freke]

Facts without context are irrelevant.

[Miriam]

Originally posted by freke
Facts without context are irrelevant. I knew you'd return :)

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by freke
Facts without context are irrelevant.


They're your facts.

[freke]

I know Miriam :)

But facts without context are irrelevant.

10

20%

45

3.141

What do these mean? The bare numbers are meaningless. It is the context that the numbers appear. Your focus on anti-semitic conclusions from the UN figures, and unthinking rejection of alternatives, is revealing.

[Jorge]

Since compliance of UN resolutions is being discussed, it might be pertinent to bring up Mr. Tony Blair's position on the subject.

Mr. Blair said today in Blackpool that UN resolutions should be implemented across the Middle East, not just in Baghdag. He stated his support for these resolutions to be applied to the situation bet. Israel and the Palestinians, as much as to Iraq.
"But they don't just apply to Israel.They apply to all parties"

We have to admit that Mr. Blair's arguments place Israel in a delicate position. Mr. Bush's started this business by repeatedly asserting that "what is at stake here is whether a country(Iraq)
can be allowed to ignore UN resolutions, thus undermining its prestige and authority". Following on his footsteps, Mr. Blair extends the argument to its logical conclusion: can we allow another country(Israel) to get away with it?.

I think Mediocrates should be justified in invoking the old Arab saying: " God, protect me from my friends; with my enemies I can deal by myself"

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by freke
Facts without context are irrelevant.

This is not what we call dimensionless variables:

Requests:

The Arabs were "called upon" to "comply," "desist," "refrain" etc. 4 times. Israel was "demanded," "ordered" etc. to do General Assembly bidding 305 times.

Expressions:

The Assembly expressed its "concern," "grave concern," "anxiety" etc. about Israeli policies or actions 179 times. The General Assembly expressed itself in similar terms about Arab policies or actions 0 times.

Condemnations:

Israel was "condemned," "vigorously condemned," "strongly condemned," "deplored," "strongly deplored", "censured," "denounced" by the General Assembly 321 times. The Arabs were condemned 0 times.

Cumulative Number of Votes cast with/for Israel: 7,938.

Cumulative Number of Votes cast against Israel: 55,642.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Jorge
Since compliance of UN resolutions is being discussed, it might be pertinent to bring up Mr. Tony Blair's position on the subject.

I think Mediocrates should be justified in invoking the old Arab saying: " God, protect me from my friends; with my enemies I can deal by myself"


Well in practical terms, enforcing all of the hundreds if not thousands of resolutions against Israel would probably take the entire industrial output focus and attention of the world for the next century so at least everyone will be busy.

[freke]

But the facts are meaningless without context!

Do you believe that the "Arabs" should have been called upon, demanded etc to do stuff as much as the Israelis? Are you saying there's no parity, this makes it unfair? Or should Israel never have been criticised?

Do you ever stop to think for one second why the Arabs aren't criticised? (here's a clue: it's got three letters).

Here's another clue:

In 1988 there were two UN resolutions condemning Iraq for the chemical attack on Halabaja. I know for a fact that Britain opposed or abstained those votes. I'm also willing to bet that the US opposed or abstained from these votes too.

And here's another:

I have a friend who worked for the UK government during the 1980s and 1990s selling arms. He told me a little story and assures me that this is how all of the West's diplomats (ie US, Europe and Japan) deal with the Middle East.

A small Gulf state with a pretty lousy human rights record contacted the British government expressing its desire for warmer diplomatic relations. The British government had no problem with this but said that this expression of friendship should be paid for in hard currency - ie the Gulf state would have buy arms. The price of British friendship with a Gulf state during the 1980s was £400m. Before you get all anti-European on my ass, the Americans were, and are, doing the same, only more so.

You can't quote facts from the UN votes (which is the hotbed of diplomatic nods, winks, handshakes, deals, exchanges) without looking at the broader foreign policy context.

Without the context, your facts are just numbers.

45

99

3%

2.3

77.6786767676494092544

[freethepeeps]

Originally posted by freke


Without the context, your facts are just numbers.

45

99

3%

2.3

77.6786767676494092544

Surely that last number should read 77.6786767676494092543

:confused:

[freke]

aye, you might have something there. I'll add it to my Bumper Book of Irrelevant Facts To Be Used To Support A Totally Specious Argument

This thread has finally become as surreal (but not yet as menacingly Orwellian) as its title.

[freethepeeps]

Originally posted by freke
aye, you might have something there. I'll add it to my Bumper Book of Irrelevant Facts To Be Used To Support A Totally Specious Argument

This thread has finally become as surreal (but not yet as menacingly Orwellian) as its title.

:)

I saw this banner once - it said:

FIGHTING FOR PEACE IS LIKE F***ING FOR VIRGINITY!

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by freke
Without the context, your facts are just numbers.

45

99

3%

2.3

77.6786767676494092544


But you brought them in here, you presented them as evidence, why did you? All I did was paste in the page you referenced to begin with so that people wouldn't have to switch to it. You srated out by saying "here is some information that demonstrates that the UN is not antiisraeli. I suggested that raw numbers speak louder than your qualifications and pasted in the same data as you link to. This is why defense lawyers rarely put the accused on the stand.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by freke
aye, you might have something there. I'll add it to my Bumper Book of Irrelevant Facts To Be Used To Support A Totally Specious Argument

This thread has finally become as surreal (but not yet as menacingly Orwellian) as its title.

Especially when you say things like the above quote.

[freke]

45

76

47

34

To explain the relevance of these numbers we need a context. This context may qualify the numbers, but that's to make it more accurate, remove the qualifications and the numbers are made inaccurate.

I brought the figures in because it was an extremely pro-Israeli site which said that "only" 15% of UN security council resolutions were critical of Israel, not the 30% often referred to. Then I went on to say that it is over-simplistic to the point of irrelevance to not put in the foreign policy context, ie any resolution about the US, UK, USSR, France, China or any of their allies would be vetoed.

You want the facts to support your own paranoid worldview, but you have to leave out all the context to make them so. This is lying in all but name.

Please stop inaccurately paraphrasing me, as you may have noticed I am quite good at making up words all by my self.

Which quote where you referring to above?

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by freke
45

Which quote where you referring to above?

this one

aye, you might have something there. I'll add it to my Bumper Book of Irrelevant Facts To Be Used To Support A Totally Specious Argument

This thread has finally become as surreal (but not yet as menacingly Orwellian) as its title.

[Mediocrates]

You want the facts to support your own paranoid worldview, but you have to leave out all the context to make them so. This is lying in all but name.


I don't believe this is out of context not in light of the seemingly endless list of things to do the UN must have:


Condemnations:

Israel was "condemned," "vigorously condemned," "strongly condemned," "deplored," "strongly deplored", "censured," "denounced" by the General Assembly 321 times. The Arabs were condemned 0 times.

Cumulative Number of Votes cast with/for Israel: 7,938.

Cumulative Number of Votes cast against Israel: 55,642.

[freke]

But out of the gamut of different explanations for this, you pick only one. But to justify that choice, you have to repudiate others.

Instead you say that the answer's obvious - my choice - and all others are "qualifications" or "excuses".

[michael]

It's just vaguely possible that the correct response to terrorism and fundamentalism is civilization, rather than violence.

The factual accuracy of the beginning premise (post#1) is very suspect which leaves me in great doubt as to the accuracy of the analysis. It's rather fashionable of the extreme right to lambast the previous US administration as pandering to liberal interests and being mired in committee. The facts speak a diffrent story. Of course, once accepted, this premise is a great justification for the advocacy of an extreme unilaterist bent, unless practicalities intervene (such as Iraq).

Rather than defending a peaceful approach, what is required is that the arguement for war shoulder the burden of proof.

[freke]

thank you michael for that little moment of rationality.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by michael
It's just vaguely possible that the correct response to terrorism and fundamentalism is civilization, rather than violence.


I'm all ears. Really. Therefore we should...............I really want to hear a cogent argument for this because I swear I'd jump on board if I thought it made any sense.

[Ory]

The choice for Palestinians must between complete destruction and a compromise with Israel -- a compromise that includes acceptance of no "right of return" to within Israel and not the '67 cease fire line but defensible borders for Israel. [/B]

I don't see where the word 'compromise' fits into that statement.
I think that a better solution could be found, other than taking a people that were in their place, long before it was called Israel, by the way, and forcing them into submission. of-course that right of return should'nt be implemented, but what your suggesting is far from civilised, and anticipating your response, terrorism on their side does'nt excuse it.
further more,


Israel must defeat the PA just as the U.S. defeated Japan and Nazi Germany.

so, the US commited the ultimate act of terrorism against the civillian population of japan, an act that could have been completely avoided(there WERE plans to use the A-bomb as a warning and not hit any targets, or to just hit military targets),
and you want a repeat of that monsterous act in the middle east.
even if that were somehow moraly acceptable, and I can't see how, do I really need to remind you that every arab nation around Israel, with the possible exception of lebanon, has nuclear power too? what you're suggesting would probably leave the entire middle east uninhabbitable for centuries, and the rest of the world chocking on radioactive fallout for years.
if that doesn't bother you, than you must know something I don't.

[Mediocrates]

I'm not sure if you're being ironic or not.

The US did not commit terrorism to end WW2 - it ended WW2. If you are getting your position from historians like Gar Alperovitz you should understand that even he does not believe that those events were terrorism. His thesis is that they were unnecessary.

My own thought that there is no such thing as a military-only target. Countries build factories in cities because that's where the transportation, people and materials are.

And we know - from actual experience that even were the absolute wose to happen - while the loss of life would be horrible, the mid east would by no means be uninhabitable. In fact people are more likely to suffer disease from the toxic pollution of Saddam's Gulf War scorched earth policy.

No the right of return should not be implemented - that would spell the end for the state of Israel. You see this is the rhino hiding behind the houseplant no one can get around. All of the peace proposals for 'fairness' and justice imply the end of Israel. Now you might not particularly care or maybe the rights of Palestinians trump all, to you. I have no way to know. What I do know is that your moral indifference and proclivity for simply plugging abstract 'truths' into an equation are astonishingly blind in several ways.

One - What you propose is a Jew free region. Ok maybe that's ok with you but let's call a spade a spade - rights and freedom and equality notwithstanding you advocate your own form of racial hegemony and aparthied.

Two - You assume a condescending, paternalistic and racist attitude toward the Palestinians themselves. You assume that they can only live in the dirt and squalor forever unless they are given their 'land' back, when they say, how they say, under whatever terms they say.

Three - You assume that a Jews Out Peace In Policy somehow ameliorates the innumerable regional and political problems, almost by magic. As if Hezbollah will suddenly not want a piece of Lebanon, as if the millions of Palestinians in camps in Jordan will suddenly be given tract house and good jobs. As if the Egyptians will stop killing tens of thousands of political and religious dissidents. As if the Syrians will suddenly stop trying to be a regional power through terrorism. As if.

[tkcteccfrs]

Remember Rehavam (Gandhi) Ze'evi HY"D

Today marks the one year anniversary of the murder of Gandhi, may G-d avange his blood, by the savages. Meanwhile the Oslo criminals who are responsible for his death remain in power and continue to actively support the murderers. Let us remember on this sad day the price of their treachery and cowardice and say to ourselves "Never Again." Let Arik Sharon remeber the words spoken by Ze'evi's son at his funeral:

"You did not merit, beloved son of this land, to be accepted when you were alive. You took upon yourself to be loyal to Eretz Yisrael, even when everyone blared in your ear that a 'New Middle East is shining.' 'You are hallucinating!,' you answered them."

"And to you, you who murdered my father, you temporary residents of Canaan, I am telling you that we are staying here, because this is ours!"

"And to you, Arik, a friend who was so close at the beginning of the way: Take revenge, the way that Gandhi would have done after you, and go back to leading the country the way we knew you."

"And you, dear residents of Yesha, and the rest of Israel: We are burying Gandhi today, but he asked me to charge you to be strong and continue to be loyal to the path."


Let us also remember the wise words spoken by Nadia Matar a week after Ze'evi's death.

"We must remember, and not forget, that Oslo murdered Gandhi. Or, to be more precise, the "Oslo conception" murdered Gandhi.

That same terrible conception that says that we must surrender to terror. Gandhi's murder, like the other murders of Jews since Oslo, is a direct result of capitulation and surrender to terror. All the architects- criminals-supporters-continuers of Oslo cannot say, "Our hands did not shed this blood." Just as they cannot say this about the other victims of the Oslo war. We must recall that Shimon Peres and the other Oslo criminals gave the enemy guns, and ammunition, and cities of refuge. These guns are murdering us every day. These guns also murdered Gandhi.

The war today in Israel is between the "Oslo conception" and the "Gandhi heritage." A war between the post-Zionists and the Zionists. A war between the Israelis who are willing to concede Eretz Israel and hand it over to the enemy, and the Jews, such as Gandhi, who love the land, love the people, and are willing to give their lives for a continued Jewish existence in all of Eretz Israel.

In the last elections the people chose the Gandhi heritage. A heritage of love of the people of Israel, the Land of Israel, and the Torah of Israel.

We thought, in our innocence, that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would represent that heritage. But in recent weeks we were stunned by Ariel Sharon's statements in favor of the establishment of a Palestinian state in the heart of Eretz Israel. At every occasion - even at Gandhi's memorial ceremony in the Knesset - Sharon repeats that he is willing to make "painful concessions." In the last few days, the "Ha'aretz" newspaper has leaked that Sharon has already presented President George Bush with a clear plan for the creation of a Palestinian state in Yesha. When Bush asked Sharon what will happen to the many settlements in those areas that are supposed to be handed over to the Palestinians, Sharon is quoted as saying: "Don't worry. I know how to deal with them". Remembering that it was Sharon who was in charge of uprooting and destroying Yamit, we know what he means when he says he will "deal with the settlements." In fact, people surrounding PM Sharon have told and warned Yesha people that Sharon often repeats that "only he is capable of uprooting settlements."

With his statement in favor of a PA terror state, Sharon thus joined the small band of "Oslo conception" supporters who are struggling against the Jewish "Gandhi heritage." Such an announcement is a betrayal of the mandate that the people gave Sharon. Agreeing to the establishment of a Palestinian state is also a betrayal of the Likud platform, a platform that Sharon is supposed to represent, that states explicitly that "no Arab state will be established to the west of the Jordan." Consent to the establishment of a Palestinian state is a slap in the face of thousands of years of Jewish history in Eretz Israel. It is also a slap in the face to Gandhi's family, to the family of the victims of Oslo, and to the family of all the terror victims and the families of the soldiers who fell in the war for the establishment of the State of Israel.

Throughout our people's entire history, despite all the persecutions, despite the Inquisition, despite the pogroms, despite the Holocaust - no leader could conceive of foregoing a single bit of Eretz Israel. By what right does Ariel Sharon now surrender our land and homeland? Did we establish the State of Israel and sacrifice more than 20,000 of our sons in Israel's wars, in order to give over our land to a foreign people? We call upon Ariel Sharon to retract immediately, publicly, his shameful proclamations of assent to the establishment of a Palestinian state in the heart of Israel.

Ariel Sharon received a mandate from the people to continue the "Gandhi heritage." A deviation from this mandate will compel us to bring down the government and to find other leaders.

We pledge to Rehavam Ze'evi - Gandhi, may the Lord avenge him, that we will neither be silent nor still. We will continue his will with greater vigor: the struggle for the people of Israel, the Land of Israel, and the Torah of Israel."

American Zionist Information Network (http://www.azin.org)

[takeo]

This prooves that Zeevi's son is as much an extremist as his father. He calls for Eretz Israel free of "foreign people", and he denies the Palestinian people the right to exist. This program is pure fascism and the denial of Palestinian rights is the main reasons for this bloody war, that killed his father too. He mentioned the genocide against the Jews as well as religion to justify the repression of another people living on the same territory he claims should be exclusively Jewish. He is a part of the problem and it is a shame that such extremists are in Israel's government. Actually he has the same goal as hamas, exclusive rights on all of the area between the Jordan and the sea by one of the two present etnic/religious groups on the expense of the other one.

mediocrates:
"Well in practical terms, enforcing all of the hundreds if not thousands of resolutions against Israel would probably take the entire industrial output focus and attention of the world for the next century so at least everyone will be busy."

You succesfully tried to avoid a real answer by joking around, but if you care so little for UN-resolutions, how can you defend the stance of your president on iraq? Or do you agree that it is just an excuse to get away with invading Iraq and imposing a more loyal dictatorship, instead of "enforcing the UN-resolutions" as Bush claims?

[michael]

Originally posted by Mediocrates

I'm all ears. Really. Therefore we should...............I really want to hear a cogent argument for this because I swear I'd jump on board if I thought it made any sense.


The supposition that violence can bring about peace is, I think, fairly easily dismissed. Some may argue that WWII ended through violence, but continued peace was brought about by the re-institution of the rule of law, massive economic support and the return of civil society.
Western support for Saddam didn't improve the lot of the average Iraqi, and US/British/Australian pandering to Suharto saw hundreds of thousands of East Timorese die. The common problem that these examples highlight is Western concern for structures of power. We seem to think in these terms and deal with others in these terms.
My concern is for the individual and the human consequences of our actions - for those without power.
This is the basis of democratic forms - the individual. Much could be acheived if we concentrated on the individual. Democracy is a matter of not only voting, but particapation in civil society and the building of civil institutions.

A pratical example is, I'm sure, what you want. Let's look at the PA. A concentration on developing civil, secular institutions may help build a society that see's itself as having a role and a future outside of "resistance". For all the money that Israel(or rather the US) pours into "Security", what has been the net gain. If you look at deaths as a measure of security the results have been disasterous. Acording to Ha'aretz (7/10) and the AI report the number of Israeli children that died between 1988 and 2000 was 18. Since 2000, it is 73. Yet there is more "security" activity than ever. Something is seriously wrong.

Development of Palestinian civil society is crucial to Israeli security, yet all measures of economic and social proress in the occupied territories is on a downward trend. This will raise the cry of - not until we have security.
To look at this question realistically, I'll take the US as an example. In many regards the finest example of democracy and freedom. But for how long has it been so? Slavery existed in the 19th Century. Women didn't have the vote till 1920, African Americans- when was that acheived? The highest pinnacle - freedom of speech, not assured until the 1960's, just 40 years ago.

My point, as usual is simple - these things take time, even in a bastion of freedom such as the US. To demand perfect conditions to wait for negotiations , or to harsly criticise those countires that don't have similiar freedoms and use that as an excuse to bomb, is a rather convenient lapse of memory.
Bombing the US didn't bring about the vote for women - that principle still holds true and deserves to be remembered.

[Mediocrates]

from takeo -
You succesfully tried to avoid a real answer by joking around, but if you care so little for UN-resolutions, how can you defend the stance of your president on iraq? Or do you agree that it is just an excuse to get away with invading Iraq and imposing a more loyal dictatorship, instead of "enforcing the UN-resolutions" as Bush claims?



I wasn't kidding though. It would literally take decades to implement all of the hundreds of resolutions, crticisms, declarations, proclamations, votes, complaints and sanctions.

And my defense of 'my president's stance' is not what you think it is. I say regardless of what the UN says and does whether there are implementable actions from UN or not, we should act. Personally I couldn't care less what the UN says about Iraq because just as it has failed to derive any meaningful results elsewere it has failed to derive any meaningful results in and or for Iraq as well. It has nothing at all to do with a naive approach of "one for all and all for one" thinking somehow that you work from some bizarre Venn diagram (you did "x" then therefore you MUST do "x" now) that dictates your terms for you.

I believe we should act ragardless. For a perspective, take a look at this

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson100402.asp


You know I've never really understood this "Well you gave him weapons 20 years ago" line anyway. What difference does that actually make? We gave people food 20 years ago too. I suppose they should be eternally grateful.

[Mediocrates]

I'm sorry michael but all you've stated is the obvious. American civil rights were fought for and over for decades. People died for them. But how they were implemented was through the mechanisms that already existed and were expanded to encompass a wider group of individuals. Today we discuss encompassing yet more individuals, not specifically because of what they are, but because of what is done to or against them. So the whole debate over handicapped rights, or same sex marriages is in the context of what legal remedies can be used to ameliorate the circumstances done to them in apparent violation of constitutional rights that 'naturally' appear to embrace everyone. But at any rate that solution is addressed though institutions that already exist.

The Palestinians find themselves in quite different circumstances though. Because either they chose or had chosen for them the one mega group of leaders who are uniquely ill suited and disinterested in forming civil institutions. We simply can't jump over the "let's assume they are there and let them go" stage.

That is called benign neglect. The Belgians did it in the Congo - they effectively threw independence over the wall at them and left. it resulted in probably the worst long term catastophe in all of Africa. and that is more or less what you propose. Tomorrow or the next day IDF tanks roll back home and 10,000 AK47's fire to the sky in jubilation. Day two - someone still needs to run the electricity and collect the garbage. And run the schools as educational facilities and not just hatemills.

Day three - you can build a courthouse but where are the laws. You need a civil code, courts that function, state agencies that work beyond bribe taking and giving, bills of lading, a post office, currency, exchange rates, a visa office, someone to pave the streets, healthcare services and so on. See we tend to focus on the highfalutin like "If the Palestinians were merely given their soverignty then peace would reign" and then we ignore or choose to forget that the people who we expect to do this do one thing well. They kill people.

Would you expect something to flow naturally and spontaneously from Rwanda or Zimbabwe or Afghanistan? Then why would you expect it to happen in Ramallah?

[takeo]

"I wasn't kidding though. It would literally take decades to implement all of the hundreds of resolutions, crticisms, declarations, proclamations, votes, complaints and sanctions.

And my defense of 'my president's stance' is not what you think it is. I say regardless of what the UN says and does whether there are implementable actions from UN or not, we should act. Personally I couldn't care less what the UN says about Iraq because just as it has failed to derive any meaningful results elsewere it has failed to derive any meaningful results in and or for Iraq as well. It has nothing at all to do with a naive approach of "one for all and all for one" thinking somehow that you work from some bizarre Venn diagram (you did "x" then therefore you MUST do "x" now) that dictates your terms for you. "

In most cases, including Iraq (but as well Yougoslavia, Indonesia, etc.) UN-resolutions have been enforced, so it's really not a kind of utopia. Without the UN there wouldn't be any weapons inspections in Iraq or anywhere else, not now and not tomorrow.
What you call "you did "x" then therefore you MUST do "x" now" is in other words a logical and rational policy, and the US claims to be funded on rationality. I agree that the fact that you supported Saddam in the 80's doesn't mean that you have to support him today, but it is quite unreasonable to describe Saddam as the great evil when he was described as a friend just some years ago, without ever having used WMD against any foreign country or attacking the US.

"See we tend to focus on the highfalutin like "If the Palestinians were merely given their soverignty then peace would reign" and then we ignore or choose to forget that the people who we expect to do this do one thing well. They kill people.
Would you expect something to flow naturally and spontaneously from Rwanda or Zimbabwe or Afghanistan? Then why would you expect it to happen in Ramallah?"

your example of Congo is false, because Congolese were really not prepared for independance, most had just barely escaped the stone age in their villages and noone had university education. Palestinians on the contrary are in general smart and educated people, with an own economy and infrastructure not imposed on them by a foreign power. The only reason they fail to devellop is politial problems and foreign occupation. Arab states have maintained or improoved after independance, even if a lot of political and social problems remained. You can compare Palestinians to Libanese or Yougoslavs, not to Africa. Afghanistan by the way has the capacity to devellop without much foreign help, not so long ago it was on the same level of Iran, which is nowadays no longer a thirth world country (altough problems remain of course).
"they kill" is a non-argument, Germans, one of the most developped peoples on earth, killed too, as do Israeli.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
your example of Congo is false, because Congolese were really not prepared for independance, most had just barely escaped the stone age in their villages and noone had university education. Palestinians on the contrary are in general smart and educated people, with an own economy and infrastructure not imposed on them by a foreign power.

The Palestinians are no different than the most primitive of cultures, certainly no more advanced a society than the Congolese.

You cannot ignore the Palestinian realities of third-world overpopulation, public corruption, religious extremism, rampant private and institutional racism, glorification of violence and mass murder, and the list goes on...

[takeo]

"The Palestinians are no different than the most primitive of cultures, certainly no more advanced a society than the Congolese.

You cannot ignore the Palestinian realities of third-world overpopulation, public corruption, religious extremism, rampant private and institutional racism, glorification of violence and mass murder, and the list goes on..."

If public corruption, religious extremism, rampant private and institutional racism, glorification of violance, etc. would be signs of a primitive culture, than Israel would be a primitive culture, which is not true. In fact this social appearances are a consequence of the political and economical situation in both Israel and Palestina, not vice versa. Palestinians are an Arab people, and Arab countries have their share of social, political, religious, etc. problems, no doubt, and not all of the problems are created by foreign intervention as Arab leaders love to declare, but Arab countries are not among the less devellopped, and the standard of living and cultural, economical devellopment, is generally higher than in most thirth world countries in Asia, Africa or Latin America. Palestinians are no "Untermenschen", even in the current terrible and chaotic situation, most just continue with their little shops, crafts, factories, whereas many people in the West would have become crazy. In fact i think Palestinians (and israeli) behave more civilised in this war than yougo's during the war in Yougoslavia (at least an important percentage on both sides condamn the cruelties against the other side and their own leaders, and there hasn't been etnic cleansing, yet...). I am talking of average people, not the leaders.