Kadima presents party platform

[Overload]

First of all, english is not my mothertongue, overboast.

English isn't my mother tongue either.

Beyond your prejudice, I know what a theory is. Even the game theory - I may not be the unequalled expert that you are, though.

I am not an expert, I am just pointing out the most obvious mistakes so you can correct yourself in the future.

BTW how would you call a theory that has been falsified correctly in english? What is second?

A theory that has been falsified, i.e., forged or corrupted so the results are engineered to fit preconceived idea is called "bunk".

By what you said - I doubt that any systematic application of your idea to employ gt to politics could lead to anything new in Israel - commemorating that everything (even doing nothing, let alone try-and-erroring your theories) costs a person's life.

Although I only have the slightest idea of what you are talking about, It depends on whose life we are talking about.

Nevertheless sharonbn might be willing to repeatedly burn his fingers at the palestininan's stove, trusting he would find one cool stove one day (like Lot ). AND the hostile opposition wants to sabotage every attempt to improve the status quo.

Sharon like many Israelis are tired. Like Ehud Olmert: "We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies."

[sharonbn]

Sharon like many Israelis are tired. Like Ehud Olmert: "We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies."

Yes we are tired.
Tired of the fact that a small minority dictates Israeli policy and prolonging this conflict, all the while showing total disregard to the law and undermining gov't authority.

The majoriy of Israelis want to pull out of west bank and finish the defensive wall.

[Overload]

I've broken this discussion into two posts.

I am sorry if I have misled you, Overload. I am not a pragmatist. I am a "normal" human being, and as such, am plagued with non rational beliefs, stereotypes and subjective view of history.

As we all are. I am not trying to put you as a person in a box or define you by a phrase or word. Because humans a finite beings, we need categories that act as representations. I called your ideological world view pragmatist in the most general sense. My world view is idealistic in the most general sense but it doesn't mean that we do not borrow from each stream to reach our point of view.

It is my belief that the Arabs have a "nativity" right over the land of Israel.

You will soon find out that nativity is a relative and subjective term. Remember that Jews had lived in the Land of Israel continuously, perhaps not in large numbers, but large enough to constitute a minority. A native or an indigenous person literally means "born in". The only difference between the "nativity" of Jews and the nativity of Arabs is the size of the population. Then there is the conceptual problem of determining who is an actual native and who is an immigrant. Most Palestinian Arabs in Judea and Samaria (like those living in "refugee camps") are not natives of that area, but are immigrants from both other Arab countries and descendants of those who left Israel. Finally, 83% of Israelis are literally natives, people born in Israel and the territories. Without considering the fact of Arab immigration from other Arab countries, there is no difference in the nativity of one group or the other. What you are talking about is an intangible even irrational value when other overbearing facts have long ago become more important than something as silly and subjective as places of birth. What matters is not the nativity of a person, but the context, the history and the incredible danger posed by an Arab population near Israel.

I believe that they, not the Jews, are the indigenous population who were living here continuously for the past 1,500 years.

Both are indigenous populations. That’s historical fact.

Any other ethnic group in the world who has a 1,500 history on a piece of land, gets to be labeled "native" and consequently gets to have national rights, regardless of what happened 500 years before.

I am not talking about what happened 500 years earlier, I am talking about what happened 55 years ago and its effects on today. Everything that happened before us has a powerful pull on the present. I am sure you know the general history of the area so I am not going to go into excruciating detail.

During the Ottoman Empire, the Land of Israel was a province Syria and the people until identified themselves as Syrians. When the Ottoman Empire disintegrated after World War I, it became a mandate of the League of Nations, which went to Britain to be turned into a Jewish National homeland. When the British left the Mandate in 1948, the area became unclaimed territory. Since there never was a Palestinian state or a sovereign Arab national authority, not even a Palestinian people until 1966, the land was up for grabs. Jews claimed one part of ancient Israel, and the Arabs claimed everything. The Arabs lost and they no longer have any right over that land. That’s reality.

This conflict really has little to do with land. When Jordan controlled Judea and Samaria, Palestinian Arabs lived there without agitating for a Palestinian state. Only Yasser Arafat and his Tunisian posse wanted one. First, they settled for Jordan during Black September in 1970-71 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan), then he moved to Lebanon, and then Rabin graciously invited him to Israel.

But that is not the point, what matters is that the conflict as Avigdor Lieberman stated: "The real reason for the long-standing conflict is the friction that naturally exists between two populations," "Anywhere in the world where there are two populations, two religions and two languages [sharing the same territory], there is conflict."

The reason for Israel's right to exist is to protect the survival of the Jewish people and avoid a second Holocaust. That's the original goal of Zionism and it is still relevant today.

I will ignore my need to correct you and instead ask this question based on your own understanding of the legitimacy of Israel's existence.

How does creating a hostile, poverty stricken, Arab state in the heart of Israel fit into the goal of protecting the survival of the Jewish people?

What kind of survival are we talking about? Purely genetic, or cultural?

Israel MUST admit the native right of the Arabs over the land of Israel.

There is no native right, nor have I heard of a native right. What I have heard of is the right of self defense. The Arab population is hostile to a Jewish state, they have been since Israel's inception, they started 7 wars over it and committed terrorist acts against Jews. They can only be recognized as enemies of the Jewish people because they started a war against us.

The Arabs Must admit Israel's right to exist.

Ok, so you've made a statement. It is a relevant position, because clearly if Arabs admitted that Israel has a right to exist, there wouldn't be such hostility. But what is the probability of this happening in the near future? What supporting evidence can you provide that by surrendering Jewish sovereignty over our heartland will make the Arabs admit that Israel has a right to exist? To recognize our legitimacy as a people, we have to give up the Temple Mount, and all of our biblical territory? You don't think that sounds foolish? That we have to give in to their demands, forfit our patrimony, become shells of a people so they will stop trying to kill us?


Arabs will never recognize the Jewish people's right to a Jewish state because you are already willing to surrender the legitimacy of Israel's existence by claiming that Arabs have some innate right to Israel. If that is so, than Tel Aviv belongs to Arabs just as much as Judea and Samaria. If there is one thing I know about Arab Islamic culture, is that they have a very harsh sense of what is just. It is not just for a thief to take everything and than give half back.

"Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself."

Jean-François Revel

The Arabs should also take responsibility for their decision from 1947 to reject the partition plan and agree to compromise on green line borders, with some adjustments as will be detailed in the peace treaty.

I want you to describe a future Palestinian state to me. Its culture and its relation to Israel.

It is important for me to see your conception of the future.

I cannot agree to this. What underlies this statement is your belief that the Pals have no right over the land. I have already stated that I believe the land belongs to the Arabs, no to the Jews. I admit this belief is not pragmatic, but a subjective interpretation of history. So is your belief.

Actually, I have not stated my belief about this at all, but I have two very good historical reasons to hold on to the land. First and foremost, it is the heart of Israel. It contains Hebron, the ancient Jewish capital, the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Joseph's Tomb, Nazareth and Bethlehem. All of these places have a rich Jewish history and incredible significance to the Jewish people. Giving them up means we do not care about our heritage. Secondly, there is no justifiable reason to prop up a hostile Arab state in the heartland of Israel, even if I were to agree with you that there is some native right, I care more about Jewish survival. I believe with good reason, that what you see now in Gaza is what you will be seeing from a future Palestinian state, only on a massive organized scale.


I believe that this land belonged to no one. The Palestinian Arabs never had a state and the land where they want one was never part of a sovereign state called Palestine. They are simply agitating for a Juderein Arab state, when they already have a Palestinian state in Jordan, and it has a 70% Palestinian Arab majority.

[Overload]

Part 2

If you believe in what you wrote then perhaps you support the Chinese occupation of Tibet from 1950.

Tibet is a sovereign state under foreign occupation. Judea and Samaria are unclaimed by any sovereign state, and are not part of any sovereign state. On the other hand, you have stated that it doesn't matter what happens before, what matters is the present. Hence, you never cared that the Arabs conquered the Land of Israel 1500 years ago, you shouldn't care that China conquered Tibet or if Israel annexes Yesha. Why? Because you have in not so many words decreed that might makes right. Neither historical claims nor the unmistakable reality of indefensible borders, or of the physical danger posed by a hostile Arab state so close to Israel has any effect.

There are more Chinese people than Tibetans in Tibet today and Tibetans, although opposing the occupation, cannot be labeled "hostile".

What is your point? My point was very simple. If there were not many Arabs in Yesha, which is ancient Jewish patrimony, and territory unclaimed by any sovereign state, then we would be wholly justified to annex our heartland to Israel "proper".

Your point escapes me.

I agree. I have no connection with the Israeli Arabs and if possible, would draw the borders so that bordering Arab towns, like Um el Fahem, would belong to Palestine. I am not sure if this is feasible though.

Without going into speeches about capitulation, I will stop on the fact that you agree that Israel is better without a hostile Arab population.

I agree that my theories are speculative by nature, since they are predictions of the future. I do not believe them to be concocted "horror scenarios" built for the sole purpose of supporting the end conclusions.

Then lets consider something altogether different. I do not know why you live in Israel, or what connection you have with it. But I can imagine that if the Arabs did not reside in Judea and Samaria, then you would have no problem annexing it because you do believe that Judea and Samaria, and all the ancient Jewish heritage that comes with it, belongs to the Jewish people.

Am I correct? (Please don't answer but "the Arabs do reside there" because we are distilling the essence, as it were.)

But its irrelevant, as it seems there is a deeper disagreement between us.

People disagree all the time. Its the discussion that matters.

[KettleWhistle]

Tibet is a sovereign state under foreign occupation. Judea and Samaria are unclaimed by any sovereign state, and are not part of any sovereign state.

More importantly, Tibet is not Chinese native land. It isn't where the Chinese people originated and/or the place where their nation's blood was brewed. Judea and Samaria is such a place for the Jewish people. Our claim is legitimate on this very basis.