Kadima presents party platform

[Mediocrates]

All I can tell you about is the Israelis I come across. Most everyone is associated with academia or advanced research with a smattering of high-tech-ish private sector jobs. They span the range from very leftist to very rightist and don't seem to share much of anything politically or religiously. I know a Sabra researcher who openly praises Hezbollah and I know his friend who's Likud. Some are here for long term temporary and others are here for good. Since most of their children were reared here they have no particular eagerness to go back to Israel.

[KettleWhistle]

I know a Sabra researcher who openly praises Hezbollah

Jews like that ought to be shot.

[Mediocrates]

Initially the Religious Zionists naturally objected to the resurrection of Hebrew as a 'national language'. It was already a national language for them and they saw no need to change it. They already had proficiency in it, or at least that part of it they needed. When the secular Zionists 'resurrected' it they more or less had to synthesize it. After all Torah Hebrew has a vocabulary apart from proper nouns and placenames of what? 3000 words? The Religious Zionists who already spoke and were literate in Torah Hebrew didn't have the need nor the inclination to make of words for radio, locomotive, penicillin and so on. It's wonderful that Hebrew or for that matter ANY language was chosen as a single national language, but it's a rather new invention.

[Mediocrates]

Jews like that ought to be shot.

Very nice man really, otherwise, and his family is very nice too. Odd the way some people are quirky like that.

[KettleWhistle]

Very nice man, but by all other means, a traitor to his people. Has he lived around where I grew up, he'd get roughed up about every single day. And his children would've been told why--for being a traitor. And rightfully so.

There are lines you can cross, and there are those you can't. Sympatizing with the enemy is one of the latter.

[minusthejihad]

Thats rediculous. Symoathizing with the enemy is completely different than material support of them. Its sad, but at the same time, having a diversity of thought is good for our people.

[KettleWhistle]

This isn't any sort of diversity of thought. It is a matter of national interests and survival. Or would you say that it was ok for some Jews to sympatize with the Germans during WWII?

[mbczion]

Sharonnb, according to international law, if you win land in a defensive war, then it is yours....No other country in history has been asked to give back land that they won in a defensive war....Now if our leaders think that by appeasing our enemies by offering them land everything will be hunky dory, that is a different story and an awfully naive gesture of them, but according to international law, Judea and Samaria are ours, fair and square....

Not only that, but like you yourself said, Tel Aviv was built in 1909, while Jews have biblical and historical claims to Jerusalem, Gaza, Hebron, Bet-El, etc. from time immemorial....When Israel was founded, large numbers of Arabs fled from Tel-Aviv/Yafo, Ramle, Lod, Haifa, and Jerusalem as opposed to negligable if any from Judea, Samaria and Gaza....Now, if most Israelis feel no connection with Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, then that is a different story (a sad story), but they are ours (both from a legal point of view and from a biblical/historical point of view)....No amount of propaganda will deny that....

Now I will make myself clear again....I am aware that Israel was founded and built by predominately secular Jews and I appreciate the pioneering spirit of the early settlers of Israel who built this country from ground up and resusitated hebrew as a spoken language....I do not advocate secular Jews leaving the country, nor do I advocate coercing them to be Orthodox....Israel is the homeland of all Jews and I am all for mutual respect between the religious and non-religious....

However, building the physical country of Israel is not enough....Israel needs a soul too....That is where religious zionism comes in....Israel also needs Jewish content, more than just street signs in hebrew....Trying to turn Israel into a Middle Eastern version of America defeats the purpose of living in a rough neighorhood like the Middle East, when young Israelis are leaving in droves for the real thing....While I am not calling for the establishment of a Torah State, there needs to be a fine balance between the two extremes - secular state of all its citizens and Torah State....Some laws are not going to make you happy and some will not make me happy, but that is the sacrifice of living in a Jewish, yet democratic State....

[MGB8]

That's not quite accurate depiction of international law. There are contradictory statements. Pre-UN, a nation was expected to be allowed to keep land that it won in a "just war" - which meant defensive war. However, the UN has had resolutions to the contrary. It was never an absolute, either.

Additionally, what IS clear is that for any land that is annexed, all the residents on the land cannot be just expelled, but must be offered citizenship. While populations transfers have happened, they have not happened via the operation of international law.

That said, under the principles of the law of war, which have been applied to Israel's land gaines from the 48 war, Israel should have the right to annex ALL, and therefore, also only PART of the WB (and grant citizenship to the residents). The question is, if they annex parts of the WB that essentially imprison the Pal Arab population, is that in of itself a human rights violation?

That, essentially, is the essence of the Sharon plan. Israel will be prepared to move forward alone. If the Pal Arabs don't want to negotiate or compromise, fine, Israel's BATNA will be pretty similar, anyways.

After all, given what people expect the Pal Arabs to deliver (pretty much nothing), how much is a negotiated agreement worth, when it will require greater sacrifices than simply making unilateral decisions on borders that give the Pal Arabs a contiguous state while ending the demographic threat?

[1.5 million]

Fascinating discusion - though I don't think it is really my place to interject or get much involved. I just wanted to say that the most Orthodox Jews I know (well) are not Zionists for what it is worth (their loss in a sense - but what do they know eh? Actually quite a bit - in their own way...again for what it is worth). And it is my personal opinion that attempting to carve two states out of the current state of Israel and/or region that some consider to be Palestine will never work. I think that the peoples of this land need to find a way to live in partnership (as most truly have already done). However I understand that it is not so simple. But I don't think that these ideas of splitting up some lands but existing side by side will ever work - will ever lead to peace or an end to the violence.

[sharonbn]

Sharonnb, according to international law, if you win land in defensive war, then it is yours....No other country in history has been asked to give back land that they won in a defensive war....

oh really? in that case, why did the allies retreat from Germany after WWII?
there is no international law that supports military occupation of any kind. International law states that all countries belong to the residents - the people living in the land.
Please stop inventing fictional facts.

Now if our leaders think that by appeasing our enemies by offering them land everything will be hunky dory, that is a different story and an awfully naive gesture of them, but according to international law, Judea and Samaria are ours, fair and square....

First of all, the disengagement was not meant to appease "our enemies". It was a unilateral action - meaning it did not take the Pals sentiment or reaction into considration. The goal of the disengagement was to improve security by creating borders that are easier to defend by IDF. The view behind this is that small, secluded settlements srounded by hostile population is impossible to defend. Now you may say that this is not true and that the disengagement will not make everything "hunky dory". nevertheless, the disengagement was not meant to appease.

Second, regarding Judea and Samaria - once again, please stop inventing fictional laws. not only there is no int'l law that legitimizes Israeli occupation, there is even no Israeli law that does that. Most of the occupied territories, incl' Gaza strip, are not annexed to Israel.

Not only that, but like you yourself said, Tel Aviv was built in 1909, while Jews have biblical and historical claims to Jerusalem, Gaza, Hebron, Bet-El, etc. from time immemorial....When Israel was founded, large numbers of Arabs fled from Tel-Aviv/Yafo, Ramle, Lod, Haifa, and Jerusalem as opposed to negligable if any from Judea, Samaria and Gaza....Now, if most Israelis feel no connection with Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, then that is a different story (a sad story), but they are ours (both from a legal point of view and from a biblical/historical point of view)....No amount of propaganda will deny that....

First of all, 1967 refugees are not negligable in their numbers. They amount to some 300,000 who fled the west bank to Jordan (200,000), Syria, Egypt and elsewhere.

Now, speaking more generally, this is a debate that goes into what Mediocrates described "belief system". Its not about facts but more about who has "right" over a certain land and how is that right to be applied. There is no denying that Jews lived in the land of Israel during biblical times. There is no denying (at least among the two of us) about Israel's right to exist in secure borders and in peace. The question is what about the right of the Pals to Israel? have they none? Arabs have been living continuously in the land for ~1,500 years. moreover, the arabs took the land from the Byzantines (which are Christian Romans) NOT from the Jews. in my eyes, such a long period gives them some right over the land. the application of that right is self determination and self rule.

So perhaps Jews have a biblical right over the land of Israel. as so happen, when the Jews returned after 2,000 years, the land was not empty, it was populated by Arabs. Now, Do the Jews HAVE to establish their state on ALL of the land of Israel and force the Arabs away from their home for the last 1,500 years?

The Arabs tried to destroy the land of Israel in 1948 and they failed. They tried to do it again in 1967 and 1973 and failed again. Since then, some Arab countries accepted Israel's right to exist and signed peace treaty with it. The Pals need to understand what Saddat and king Hussein understood. They need to accept Israel's right to exist and stop trying to destroy it. Israel needs to accept Pals' right to self rule and allow them to implement it by withdrawing from the occupied territories.

This may seem naive and unrealistic. I believe it is possible and we will see it happening in our lifetime. Moreover, I do not see any other viable solution to the conflict.

[MGB8]

Actually, Sharonbn, your point is VERY MUCH WRONG. Germany lost land in WW2 that it had before hostilities began. So did Japan. So did Italy. Under your proposition, none of that would have happened.

Where's Prussia?

Please.

Oh, and the Muslim Brootherhood wants to put peace with Israel up to referndum? What do you think will win? If they chose no peace, does that give Israel the right to get the Sinai back?

[sharonbn]

Where's Prussia?

Who is the sovereign in Prussia? Is it Russia, which conquered the land in the military conflict that is WWII? or perhaps it is the country where the region is located? see my point?

Oh, and the Muslim Brootherhood wants to put peace with Israel up to referndum? What do you think will win? If they chose no peace, does that give Israel the right to get the Sinai back?

The Egyptioan Muslim Brootherhood is equivalent of the Israeli religious messianic extreme right. you know, Feiglin, Marzel et al. both entities wish to see the total destruction of the other side, both have total disregard to the authority of the gov't or regime (they claim they get their legitimacy "from god") and both have absolutely no grasp of reality and not a trace of pragmatism.

oh yes and both want a referendum to override a gov't decision that already passed in the parliament.

[MGB8]

If there was a referendum - democracy, re: peace with Israel in Egypt (which you must admit was not democratic), PEACE WOULD LOSE. Be prepared for what all the land concessions get you.

Meanwhile, Prussia was ethnically German. THEY WERE TRANSFERRED. Germany lost land to poland, to Austria, to France. Italy lost land to either Albania or Yugoslavia. Japan lost land to the US... I also think to Russia. In other words, Borders changed.

[Mercury]

Who is the sovereign in Prussia? Is it Russia, which conquered the land in the military conflict that is WWII? or perhaps it is the country where the region is located? see my point?

Sharon,

I doubt that discovering that you have been wrong is going to change your views, but still I suggest you look at the map. This is simply embarassing.