A positive outlook on the roadmap - is it just blocked by political leaders?

[yehudi]

A positive outlook on the roadmap - is it just blocked by political leaders and activists?

This week, for instance, we learned how much more advanced the citizens of the region have become: Even their most extreme members are more willing to compromise than their leaders. First, the Palestinian Arab political scientist Dr. Khalil Shikaki surprised the world with a large-scale, credible survey of the 4.5-million Palestinian refugees living on Israel's borders. It showed that a startling 73 per cent would give up their claim to homes and lands seized by Israel since its foundation in 1948, if they were just given cash compensation.

Only 10 per cent want to return to Israel, meaning that the controversial "right of return" demanded by many Palestinians would not, as is often argued, result in Israel's cultural destruction.

Then, on Wednesday, the same question was put to the Israeli Jewish settlers living defiantly in Arab territories. Amazingly, 74 per cent of these 200,000 zealots said they would leave their homes in return for cash compensation. Only one per cent said they would consider resorting to violence to keep their homes. In other words, the Orthodox extremists are far fewer in number, and therefore easier to get past, than was previously believed.

The leaders were not ready for this explosion of moderation. Both the Palestine Liberation Party and Ariel Sharon's Likud Party denounced the pollsters this week for even asking such questions. They seemed embarrassed by the news that the vast majority of Palestinians don't actually want to drive the Jews into the sea, and that even the most religious Israelis are very unlikely to be Zionist madmen bent on overtaking the whole region.

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/.../International

I guess there is some link with the 'israelist' thread we had here.

(...) What has changed, and where has the change come from? The most profound and explicit explanation I've seen comes from Tom Segev, the Israeli historian. This week, Mr. Segev pointed out that there is an uncanny symmetry between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Both are diverse societies, impossible to summarize. But both are marked by a third generation, which has now fully come of age and appears to have rejected the projects of total conquest (or total defense) initiated by their grandparents.

Within Israel, Mr. Segev has won a reputation for referring to this belief as "post-Zionist," a term he employs as a compliment, and which he says now represents the majority view of Israelis.

This term has become an enormous subject of debate in Israel during the past two or three years. It appears in the pages of the Jerusalem Post almost every day, usually as an insult.

[Mediocrates]

please refer to the Jews of Yesha thread before you start lying again.

[Johnny Yuma]

Do you see any parallels between the demands the Palestinians are making and those of the Corsican nationalists? I understand they are re-taking their struggle to the mainland, again.


"Corsica is a French département, but Corsica is far from being France". Alexandre Dumas

[Mediocrates]

I can imagine that when the Palestinian civil war erupts yud will blame the Jews anyhow. Either because he thinks they caused it or because he thinks they don't provide a target rich environment for Pals to kill.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
[B]Do you see any parallels between the demands the Palestinians are making and those of the Corsican nationalists? I understand they are re-taking their struggle to the mainland, again.

Hello Johnny !

I see no precise parallels, no. There are a few loudy corsican nationalists, but the population here is overwhelmingly pro-France (more than this they are french).
Corsicans have been french for centuries actually: to give you an example Napoleon, was born in 1769 in Ajaccio.

1769 is four years before the Boston Tea Party and height years before the declaration of independence of the USA.



So while there has just been a missed referendum in Corsica - and we've going run through a period of unrest again (some tax offices of fire again soon) - I do not think we're going to install "colonies" there ... or we'll just colonize for the holidays as usual

.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
I can imagine that when the Palestinian civil war erupts yud will blame the Jews anyhow. Either because he thinks they caused it or because he thinks they don't provide a target rich environment for Pals to kill.

As often I do not see the relevance of your remark witht he subject, please explain and I'll do my best.


..and let me edit to restore one of my censored post too...

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
There’s a Muslim moderator in this forum.

Congrats on finding a Muslim moderator who can cover up calls to murder of crowds, especially crowds of terrorist 'supporters'.

Want an example of what is fine to this "Muslim moderator"?

Originally posted by humus_sapiens
(..) The crowd, not just the leaders, is guilty. "Terrorists and those who support them..."

As the frenzy of human sacrifice and blood lust reaches a peak, Israeli helicopter gun-ships swoop down from the skies. The call of the Israeli Apache has begun.

When a crowd of several thousand people ‘celebrates’ the death of a ‘hero’, whose life has been dedicated to murder and mayhem, there are no innocents. They are giving support to the next suicide bomber.

Israeli Apaches strafe the crowd with machine-gun fire, and shoot several rockets into the center of the crowd (...)

(source on this forum )


Ok so this call to mass murder will not be censored OK? No No it's fine here since we are on a Zionist forum. Does their version of Zionism involve mass murder? Apparently.



Now you ask me what is censored? What is unbrearable for a forum moderator? What is so opposed to True Zionist values it must not be expressed freely?

Well I have an example of what was censored yesterday.

You do not even need to go as far as that. Starting yesterday the chief in second here ibrodsky started removing part of my answers, and then a whole post. And he'll probably remove this post too so that you do not even know about it.

(source, or rather the post where it used to be written )
Judge for yourself…




Sometimes it's hard to get how the censor, named ibrodsky, exactly decide what lines can be burned and what lines cannot. For example these lines where actually kept:

Originally posted by yehudi
and this is the kind of calls to mass murder that are your bread and butter here ibrodsky. But just for "discussion" of course. And just for "self-defense" against "terrorists", of course.

Apology of mass murder is considered a crime in Europe you know. But a virtue in Israël and the US? Hopefully that's not the case and the day someone indulges in that he'll be prosecuted.

It's really amazing there is not a single voice here that condemns crowd shooting, with a post staying here two months. And your idea that "condemning crowd shooting" equals "sponsoring Hamas" is very revealing of your doctrine.

[off topic comments deleted]

… as you noticed, the censor got a little problem with the end of the post, because he decided it was not "on topic". Not being 'on topic' in the eye of the moderator means your lines are burned.



Listen to my advice, zionists "Keep on topic guys, keep on topic … or else …". If you want to know what off topic means, there are two solution

1/ I advise you to read ibrodsky editorials on the front page of this site, to understand how real Zionists keep on topic.
2/ Start with what was burned from my post. If you want to know what was really "off-topic"… you won't: this whole post is likely to disappear in minutes so I'll stop there for today.

.

[wellofvow]

Funny, I just mentioned something about a "Palestinian civil war" on another Forum thread.

What I said was that it was my impressions that the American administration would fall to their knees and shout halleluya if the IRANIANS would have a civil war to oust their regime which supports terrorism. Yet, America allows Abbas in the Palestinian Authority, which (under Arafat) had been recognized by the American administration as a regime that supports terrorism, to continue to avoid dismantling the terrorist infrastructure and disarming terrorists with the EXCUSE that this would cause a "civil war".

So I'll say it again. "Civil war" in a country under a terrorist-supporting regime should be a GOAL for the Americans. NOT just in Iran, but everywhere.

(Q) Why are the Palestinians different?
(A) Because America does not really care if Israel ceases to exist.

Israel has nothing that America values. No, America has made it plain that it does NOT value true democracy, but does pay elaborate lip service to it. Abbas was **appointed by Arafat**, and this was somehow "democratic" even though Arafat was FINALLY recognized by the American administration as a terrorist. Arafat casually and apparently permanently called off elections that the Americans demanded, and the Americans immediately suffered memory loss.

Yehudi, the language in one of your quotes was so transparently propagandistic as to be childish. The Jews live "defiantly" in parts of the West Bank. Honestly! How does one go about "living defiantly"? They live there, work there, study there, raise their children there. No differently than anybody else anywhere else in the world. And very many are not "zealots", another word that "defies" explanation. Many, some personally known to me, are not even "religious". They moved there because of cheap land and cheap luxury (compared to prices in the rest of Israel for comparable-sized house or apartment) housing.

Tom Segev does NOT represent "most" Israelis. Your claim, or his, does not make it so. I can also claim to represent most Israelis. Hey, anything is possible in a world that gives the Nobel Peace Prize to Yasir Arafat!

[yehudi]

Originally posted by wellofvow
What I said was that it was my impressions that the American administration would fall to their knees and shout halleluya if the IRANIANS would have a civil war to oust their regime which supports terrorism.

If I get it right, when you speak of "civil war" you mean "people overthrowing their political leader because they do not agree with his policy?"

If that's it, we should rather use the term : "revolution". Shouldn't we?


If that's the point it's definetly interesting. The problem, I would argue is that when a nation is under external threat, people tend to stick with "strong leaders" instead of showing dissent.

And often, the "strong leader" interest is actually to create an external threat (or make war) in order to reinforce his power. I would say many arab dictatorship or authoritarian regimes are delighted with the unrest around the israeli issue, otherwise they would be out for a while. I would say Putin used the Chechen issue to get elected when he succeded Yeltsin. And lastly, I would say Sharon himself triggerred the second intifada to get elected..

[Mediocrates]

You proved my point. Thanks.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by yehudi
Hello Johnny !

Oui! Mon ami! Fresh from another hiatus.

I see no precise parallels, no. There are a few loudy corsican nationalists, but the population here is overwhelmingly pro-France (more than this they are french).
Corsicans have been french for centuries actually: to give you an example Napoleon, was born in 1769 in Ajaccio.

1769 is four years before the Boston Tea Party and height years before the declaration of independence of the USA.

I understand it was ceded to France from Italy for payment owed, but the native Corsicans do not consider themselves French or Italian. We diverge in opinion.

So while there has just been a missed referendum in Corsica - and we've going run through a period of unrest again (some tax offices of fire again soon)

I heard about this, as well. I understand Mr. Chiraq backed the referendum, too. That must've put a real thorn in the nationalists' side, to have the majority vote down independence. Still, I also understand there remains much grumbling as to who has the better jobs; the Corsicans complain they end up with the most menial of tasks.

I do not think we're going to install "colonies" there ... or we'll just colonize for the holidays as usual

.

I hear it's a lovely place. I'd like to visit, someday.

[wellofvow]

Originally posted by yehudi
If I get it right, when you speak of "civil war" you mean "people overthrowing their political leader because they do not agree with his policy?"

If that's it, we should rather use the term : "revolution". Shouldn't we?


If that's the point it's definetly interesting. The problem, I would argue is that when a nation is under external threat, people tend to stick with "strong leaders" instead of showing dissent.

And often, the "strong leader" interest is actually to create an external threat (or make war) in order to reinforce his power. I would say many arab dictatorship or authoritarian regimes are delighted with the unrest around the israeli issue, otherwise they would be out for a while. I would say Putin used the Chechen issue to get elected when he succeded Yeltsin. And lastly, I would say Sharon himself triggerred the second intifada to get elected..

It was reported several times that Abbas is the one who uses the words "civil war" when he attempts to justify his non-compliance with the terms of the "road map", that is, dismantling the terrorist infrastructure, disarming terrorists, and arresting murderers. "Revolution" vs "civil war" is semantics. I think that what I posted is very clear, no matter what you call it. I am complaining about when sauce for the goose is NOT sauce for the gander.

There is no "problem" here with "strong leaders". Abbas is no "leader" at all. He was appointed by Arafat and does what Arafat tells him and/or allows him to do. All rifts, disagreements, arguments, what-have-you made so much of in the media is pure fantasy and PR for the gullible media.

Sharon did not "trigger" anything. According to the Jewish religion, every Jew is supposedly obliged to go to the Temple (or the site of the Temple) before certain holidays. Palestinians and Arabs can and always have found an excuse in any Jewish or Israeli behavior to riot, murder, and maim.

As an aside, I received an answer as to the "boundaries" and purpose of this Forum. As an Israeli and a Jew, I feel that allowing a poster to collectively blame each and every Jew and each and every Israeli - with the constant and repeated use of the pronoun "you" and "your" - for all imagined sins against Palestinians, Arabs, and the world is the exact equivalent of allowing the Catholic Church to blame each and every Jew through all history as having personally killed Christ.

This is totally unacceptable to me.

Allowing the hate propagandists to rewrite history on this Forum, with the excuse that this stimulates "debate" or is a free exchange of opinions, is totally unacceptable to me, also.

Other Israelis and other Jews will do as they please as far as continuing their participation in this Forum. I have no desire to do so any longer, now that I find that the Forum's boundaries are not compatible with mine.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by wellofvow
Sharon did not "trigger" anything.

I remember the time it happenned and I heard over and over that it was a huge provocation by Sharon. By going to the Temple (or "the site of the Temple", as you put it), he knew what he was doing.

I feel that allowing a poster to collectively blame each and every Jew and each and every Israeli - with the constant and repeated use of the pronoun "you" and "your" - for all imagined sins against Palestinians, Arabs, and the world is the exact equivalent of allowing the Catholic Church to blame each and every Jew through all history as having personally killed Christ.

This is totally unacceptable to me.

Allowing the hate propagandists to rewrite history on this Forum, with the excuse that this stimulates "debate" or is a free exchange of opinions, is totally unacceptable to me, also.

Indeed. This is what should be done, but it is not.

Originally posted by wellofvow
Other Israelis and other Jews will do as they please as far as continuing their participation in this Forum. I have no desire to do so any longer, now that I find that the Forum's boundaries are not compatible with mine.

It's your call - There is an interesting theory of Albert O. Hirschman, from his book "Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations,and States". You choose "Exit", I choose "Voice"

both have drawbacks
- it's a bit sad to Exit after more than 200 post like you do. And a bit like "fleeing in front of the ennemy" (just a comparison)
- my Voice doesn't work well when part of what I say is regularly removed...

still I think you should reconsider your "Exit", even I guess if we wouldn't agree on 90% of the things we think...

.

[Mercury]

Originally posted by wellofvow

As an aside, I received an answer as to the "boundaries" and purpose of this Forum. As an Israeli and a Jew, I feel that allowing a poster to collectively blame each and every Jew and each and every Israeli - with the constant and repeated use of the pronoun "you" and "your" - for all imagined sins against Palestinians, Arabs, and the world is the exact equivalent of allowing the Catholic Church to blame each and every Jew through all history as having personally killed Christ.

This is totally unacceptable to me.

Allowing the hate propagandists to rewrite history on this Forum, with the excuse that this stimulates "debate" or is a free exchange of opinions, is totally unacceptable to me, also.

Other Israelis and other Jews will do as they please as far as continuing their participation in this Forum. I have no desire to do so any longer, now that I find that the Forum's boundaries are not compatible with mine.

I believe that the presence of such people as yehudi on this forum does serve a usefull purpose. Not so much to stimulate the debate, as to show the mentality of the people we confront. While we can't bar shauvinsim from the real life, we might as well study it here.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by yehudi
I remember the time it happenned and I heard over and over that it was a huge provocation by Sharon. By going to the Temple (or "the site of the Temple", as you put it), he knew what he was doing.

Yes, he violated the Arabs' racist rule that no Jews may walk on the Temple Mount.

We are talking about a public area that certain Moslems (the *racist* kind) consider off-limits to Jews. Having built a mosque atop Judaism's holiest site--why build a mosque anywhere else?--they declared the area around the mosque "No Jews allowed."

I'm curious yehudi. Do you consider it reasonable to establish "No Jews allowed" zones?

What do you think about the fact that the mosque was built atop Judaism's holiest site?

Do you consider it a "provocation" for Ariel Sharon to violate the Arabs' racist "No Jews allowed" rule?

Did you consider it a "provocation" when Rosa Parks sat in the front of a bus during the civil rights movement in the U.S.?

Yep, by going to the Temple "he [Sharon] knew what he was doing." Does it bother you that a Jew violated the "No Jews allowed" rule?

[yehudi]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
I'm curious yehudi. Do you consider it reasonable to establish "No Jews allowed" zones?

What do you think about the fact that the mosque was built atop Judaism's holiest site?

Do you consider it a "provocation" for Ariel Sharon to violate the Arabs' racist "No Jews allowed" rule?

Well I will answer your post .... only if you promise not to delete or censor it... you know I will take your "no-this not-that zone" argument over the issue of censorship on this forum and you know I am not allowed to talk about it.