All Map, No Road [Archive]

drag

Jul2-03, 03:48 PM

Greetings !
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Recently, Israel has sacrificed the town of Bethlehem (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=1&u=/ap/20030701/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians) on the west bank to Palestinians, in exchange for a cease fire that was broken by the Palestinians. Fleeing Israelis destroyed thier roads and bridges as well as homesteads and fruit crops. This will be seen as a triumph of terrorism over Israel. The principle of the road map is that Israel gives back territory she has held for 3 years, and eventually push her back to the pre-1968 border. It was Clinton's plan - appease the Palestinians with land concessions - and it failed to achieve lasting peace, only a long cease-fire.
Israel is losing the war on terror, and Bush is contradicting his campaign against terror by promoting the deterioration of Israeli power against it.
Effective police are more scarce in the Middle-East than ice-water, and although Israel's empire is imperialistic, it is also sometimes democratic.
I would say that you are biased and ignorant on this
matter and that's it.
A few minor corrections :
1. This has nothing to do with Clinton.
2. The cease fire conditions say that Israel must
retreat everywhere to the positions before the current
conflict and Israel indeed removed most of these positions
already in the Gaza strip and allowed the Palestinians there
free passage. In the west bank the situation is more complex
and the retreat is more gradual and done in parts.
Israel is also supposed to free some prisoners and make
no military actions at all.
3. The most likely estimate (not the stupid optimistic) of
the results of this cease-fire is that the Palestinian terror
organizations will use it to rebeuild their forces and
prepare more weapons to begin a new wave of violence.
Unless of course Abu Abass manages to disarm them which is
highly unlikely and can be disrupted by a single major
terrorist attack.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
A couple of years ago, before 9/11, I was flying from NY to Portland Oregon, and I sat next to a young Israeli man who had just finished his duties for the military. He was in the US visiting relatives and taking a vacation. We talked during the entire flight. At one point I asked him: "What do you think we should do about Palestine?" His answer came in a deep muffled voice, and with his teeth clenched - "kill them all". How can US policy get rid of hatred like this? I am sure that most Palestinians feel the same.
This emotional response of this young man does not reflect
the opinion of most Israelis or even, I believe, what he
truely thinks is a practical solution.

Most Israelis simply do not want anything to do with
the Palestinians. They want to totally separate themselves
from all those propoganda brain-washed muslims around them
once and for all and get on with their lives. But the
fanatics on both sides just won't let it go.

Live long and prosper.

Ivan Seeking

Jul2-03, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by drag
This emotional response of this young man does not reflect
the opinion of most Israelis or even, I believe, what he
truely thinks is a practical solution.

Perhaps, A survey of one carries little weight. However this did seem to be his preferred solution. I then asked: "Since one can't kill all of them, how will this ever be resolved?" He was silent.

Most Israelis simply do not want anything to do with
the Palestinians. They want to totally separate themselves
from all those propoganda brain-washed muslims around them
once and for all and get on with their lives. But the
fanatics on both sides just won't let it go.

Live long and prosper.

This seems to ignore the core issue of the entire Middle East - land disputes.

drag

Jul2-03, 07:10 PM

Greetings !
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Perhaps, A survey of one carries little weight. However this did seem to be his preferred solution. I then asked: "Since one can't kill all of them, how will this ever be resolved?" He was silent.

Another sign of it being an emotional response. If this
weren't a message board you'd hear a lot more responses
of this type, from me too, believe me.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
This seems to ignore the core issue of the entire Middle East -
land disputes.
Land disputes ?! [g)]
The core issude of the middle-east are the brain washed
Palestinians and other Muslim nations. What land disputes ?
The only real land disputes are in the mind of these brain-washed
people who still think that all of Israel is their territory.
If they weren't so brainwashed and fanatic about their
religion, their nationality and so on they would've all been
living in prosperous modern countries by now. Instead their
dictators and terrortist leaders keep them at a pathetic
level, make'em live in "refugee" camps after over half a century
and keep telling them about Jihad and the murder of all
the unfeightfull who are responsible for their pathetic
misrable lives.

The only potentialy successfull way of dealing with these
people and nations is just puting a wall between them and
yourself because any contact or intervention will be interpreted
as a negative sign and call for more violence. The problem
is that even after you put a "wall" they'll still want
to get you and hurt you, but that's the optimal solution -
the same way you deal with drug addicts and drunks - lock'em
up and wait long enough. Too bad, but true.

Peace and long life.

schwarzchildradius

Jul2-03, 07:22 PM

I would say that you are biased and ignorant on this
Ha! Touchet.
1. This has nothing to do with Clinton.
I never said it did! Did you read anything? Clinton had the same approach to the situation: pressure the Israelis to withdraw. It was a failure then as it is now.
2. The cease fire conditions say that Israel must retreat everywhere to the positions before the current
conflict and Israel indeed removed most of these positions
already in the Gaza strip and allowed the Palestinians there
free passage.
More appeasement. More capitulation to terrorists. Jihad seems to have won.
Actually, when Clinton tried to impliment a similar plan, the result was a new Jihad, not a cease fire.
There was definitely a cease fire. I'm not contradicting you that there was also a Jihad ;)

russ_watters

Jul3-03, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Clinton had the same approach to the situation: pressure the Israelis to withdraw. It was a failure then as it is now. What failed then and what failed now? Then, the Israelis didn't withdraw from anywhere and a new Jihad started. Now, the Israelis withdrew from (among other places) Bethlehem and the Jihad started under Clinton has stopped.

I'm not seeing any parallels there.

To me the main difference between then and now is the pledge to create a Palestinian state. AFAIK, no US president or Israeli PM has ever stated an intent to aid in its creation until now. And without a Palestinian state, the Arabs would not consider stopping their terrorism. I have not been following this issue closely, but I sense a real decrease in our support for Israel for the first time in my memory. I'm not seeing that at all, Ivan. The US has always had Israel on a leash. Otherwise it would have taken an act of God (no pun intended) to keep Israel out of the 1991 Gulf War. The difference now is the direction we are pulling the leash.

Once more, I must remain pessimistic about the long term prospects, but what we have seen so far is little short of miraculous (granted though, about all that has happened has been the undoing of the damage Clinton did).

drag

Jul3-03, 12:57 AM

Greetings !
Originally posted by russ_watters
What failed then and what failed now? Then, the Israelis didn't withdraw from anywhere and a new Jihad started.
Israel has given relativly considrable territories to the
Palestinians in full compliance with all the agreements
before the current conflict began and despite constant Palestinian
violationsof these agreements. Their ex-terrorist leaders just
wanted it all.
Originally posted by russ_watters
I'm not seeing any parallels there.
There is a parallel here and it is the fact that the
Palestinians so far have violated every single agreement they've
ever signed with Israel and they're probably about to do so
now too(in fact, in strict terms they have already since there
were attacks carried out since the declaration a few days ago).
Originally posted by russ_watters
To me the main difference between then and now is the pledge to create a Palestinian state. AFAIK, no US president or Israeli PM has ever stated an intent to aid in its creation until now. And without a Palestinian state, the Arabs would not consider stopping their terrorism.
You appear to not understand the problems in this situation.
If the Palestinians wanted to proclaim a state they could've
done so many years ago. This is a common misconception - "the
evil Israel doesn't let us have a state". But, the Palestinians
do not proclaim their own state because they don't want to.
First they want to get as much territory, money, Israeli
infrastructure that today supports them (water, power and so on)
as possible and then they'll officially proclaim a state.
Of course, they have internal "differences" of opinion some
stick to the above reasonable option while many prefer the
other reasonable option - wage Jihad until there's no Israel
and them proclaim their state. [:D]

Live long and prosper.

Ivan Seeking

Jul3-03, 05:39 AM

Originally posted by drag
If the Palestinians wanted to proclaim a state they could've
done so many years ago. This is a common misconception - "the
evil Israel doesn't let us have a state". But, the Palestinians
do not proclaim their own state because they don't want to.
First they want to get as much territory, money, Israeli
infrastructure that today supports them (water, power and so on)
as possible and then they'll officially proclaim a state.
Of course, they have internal "differences" of opinion some
stick to the above reasonable option while many prefer the
other reasonable option - wage Jihad until there's no Israel
and them proclaim their state. [:D]

Live long and prosper.

I am not sure about the history here, but to whom did the land now known as Israel belong before 1948?

Zero

Jul3-03, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I am not sure about the history here, but to whom did the land now known as Israel belong before 1948?

Yeah, who was the moron who decided to put Israel in the middle of Arab-owned lands?

Guybrush Threepwood

Jul3-03, 06:24 AM

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

Zero

Jul3-03, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

According to that, the region was under control of Muslims for 1200 years...seems sort of stupid to try to force a Jewish homeland on land that by any logical standard belongs to Arabs...I say we reverse the foolishness and ship all the Israelis back out. Maybe they would like to live in Texas?

jcsd

Jul3-03, 10:55 AM

You appear to not understand the problems in this situation.
If the Palestinians wanted to proclaim a state they could've
done so many years ago. This is a common misconception - "the
evil Israel doesn't let us have a state". But, the Palestinians
do not proclaim their own state because they don't want to.
First they want to get as much territory, money, Israeli
infrastructure that today supports them (water, power and so on)
as possible and then they'll officially proclaim a state.
Of course, they have internal "differences" of opinion some
stick to the above reasonable option while many prefer the
other reasonable option - wage Jihad until there's no Israel
and them proclaim their state.

Do actually have any knowledge of the Israel-Palestine conflict????

For astart Israel has been systematically destroying the Palestinian infrstructure and far from supplying them with water has infact been taking water from to supply Israel and the settlements which has left them with a severe water shortage.

Israel has absolutely no right to be in the West Bank and Gaza it already stole most of the Palestinians land in 1948 and ethnically cleansed many areas. Israel could end this conflict or at least sevrely reduce this by withdrawing to it's 1967 borders but many includong the current Likudist regime believe that the land of the occupied territories belongs Israel.

russ_watters

Jul3-03, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by drag
There is a parallel here and it is the fact that the
Palestinians so far have violated every single agreement they've
ever signed with Israel and they're probably about to do so
now too(in fact, in strict terms they have already since there
were attacks carried out since the declaration a few days ago). I'll certainly give you that one. You appear to not understand the problems in this situation. If the Palestinians wanted to proclaim a state they could've done so many years ago. Don't get me wrong here, drag - I'm on Israel's side. They are the ones under constant attack from all of their neighbors. And it is certainly true that the *ARABS* could have set up a Palestinian state at any time in the past 50 years rather than perpetuate this war. The difference now is the *US* and *ISRAEL* are going to do it for them. There has never before been such a commitment from the US/Israeli (previous plans had called for giving the land back to Israel's neighbors which would allow THEM to decide what to do with it). I didn't say the US/Israel have been trying to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state.

The land that will likely become a Palestinian state (if this dice roll pays off) is land that soon after WWII was part of Israel's arab neighbors. And rather than turn that land into a Palestine THEN, the Arabs attacked Israel and Israel took the land in a series of defensive wars. But now the US/Israelis are going to force the Arabs to turn that land into a Palestine.

The point is, the end result of this peace process if it works will look a lot like what the UN mandated when Israel was created - the Arabs could have avoided all of this had they accepted it 50 years ago.
Israel has absolutely no right to be in the West Bank and Gaza it already stole most of the Palestinians land in 1948 and ethnically cleansed many areas. Israel could end this conflict or at least sevrely reduce this by withdrawing to it's 1967 borders but many includong the current Likudist regime believe that the land of the occupied territories belongs Israel. jcsd, I sorta hinted at this above, but if the 1967 borders were acceptable to the Arabs, why did they start a war in 1967? Why didn't they instead create a country and call it "Palestine"? Palestine has never existed because the Arabs have never wanted it to exist.

jcsd

Jul3-03, 01:33 PM

jcsd, I sorta hinted at this above, but if the 1967 borders were acceptable to the Arabs, why did they start a war in 1967? Why didn't they instead create a country and call it "Palestine"? Palestine has never existed because the Arabs have never wanted it to exist.

For a start, it was Israel who started the 1967 war, their claim of pre-emptive action is not completely unjustified but still contentious.

Why 'the Arabs' didn't create a country is not the subject that can be fitted into one post but more likely an essay entitled: "Israel and Pan-Arabism", in short before 1967 Egypt and Jordan occupied the WB and GS.

It's to completely misunderstand the Likud party and the settlemnt movement to say that Israel is willing to give back the OTs to the Palestinians, just a couple of years ago Saudi Arabia and the other Arab countries offered all the concessions that Israel demanded in return for a withdrawal from the OT, the offer was turned down flat.

If immigrants came into your country and forced you off your land you'd try to get it back wouldn't you? Don't you think even a return to the 1967 borders Israel are getting by far the better end of the deal as before 1948 Jews in mandate Palestine were only about a third of the population and even then, nearly all of them were recent immigrants.

drag

Jul3-03, 03:53 PM

Greetings !
Originally posted by jcsd
Do actually have any knowledge of the Israel-Palestine conflict????

Just a tiny little bit...[:D]
Originally posted by jcsd
For astart Israel has been systematically destroying the Palestinian infrstructure ...
HA ! HA ! HA ! HA ! HA ! [:D] [:D] [:D] Wait... HA! I got'ta
breath.... HA ! [:D] [:D] "Palestinian infrastructure..." HA !
HA ! HA ! [:D] HA ! What's that ? A sand dune ? HA ! HA ! HA ! [:D]
Originally posted by jcsd
Likudist regime
Yeah, yeah...[:D] And the Bush regime should surrender itself
to Kadafi or Bin-Laden (if he's alive) so that the world
could live happily ever after...[:D]
Originally posted by jcsd
For a start, it was Israel who started the 1967 war, their claim of pre-emptive action is not completely unjustified but still contentious.
You're right...[:D] They should've waited until the Egyptian
air force was bombing Tel Aviv and the Syrian tank columns
were entering Haifa...[:D]
Originally posted by jcsd
just a couple of years ago Saudi Arabia and the other Arab countries offered all the concessions that Israel demanded in return for a withdrawal from the OT, the offer was turned down flat.
Hmm... Maybe they just forgot to put it in the mail box ? [:D]

Any other history lessons ? [:D]

Peace and long life.

jcsd

Jul3-03, 04:13 PM

History major here, I think it's you who are unaware of history or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To assert that the Israelis had helped the Palestiians at all in terms of water rather than diverting it for there own use shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of the issues here.

So I see you've not actually bothered to refute just posted a rtaher inane and childish response.

The two main areas of Palestinian infrastructure that have been targeted by the Israelis are agricutltural and commercial with the destruction of 1000s of donums of farmland and the demoliton of Palestian buisnesses.

So your denying the Saudi Arabia offer hapened I notice and yet you're telling ,me that you have knowledge of this conflict.

http://www.btselem.org/Download/Policy_of_Destruction_Eng.doc

http://www.btselem.org/Download/Not_Even_A_Drop-2001.doc

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1844214.stm

kat

Jul5-03, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by jcsd
For a start, it was Israel who started the 1967 war, their claim of pre-emptive action is not completely unjustified but still contentious. I'm sure you're equally aware that who "started" the 1967 war is equally contentious?
Originally posted by jcsd

Why 'the Arabs' didn't create a country is not the subject that can be fitted into one post but more likely an essay entitled: "Israel and Pan-Arabism", in short before 1967 Egypt and Jordan occupied the WB and GS. hmm, can you point out the U.N. resolutions against the jordanian and Egyptian occupation during this period? I'm having an awful time finding them.
Originally posted by jcsd

It's to completely misunderstand the Likud party and the settlemnt movement to say that Israel is willing to give back the OTs to the Palestinians, just a couple of years ago Saudi Arabia and the other Arab countries offered all the concessions that Israel demanded in return for a withdrawal from the OT, the offer was turned down flat. all the concessions? interesting, what type of concessions were they offering to insure Israel's security? and what were they offering in place of ROR?
Originally posted by jcsd

If immigrants came into your country and forced you off your land you'd try to get it back wouldn't you? Don't you think even a return to the 1967 borders Israel are getting by far the better end of the deal as before 1948 Jews in mandate Palestine were only about a third of the population and even then, nearly all of them were recent immigrants. You know, this is always an interesting study. I have a real life American parallel for you..
In the late 1930's during all of the wonderful civil service projects my families homeland (almost 300 acres of farmland in Prince William Co, VA area) was taken in order to build a beautiful park for all to visit, it was touted as an opportunity for the poor blah blah. Basicly what it all amounted to was booting the poor blacks, Irish and the few native americans that had somehow managed to similate off their own land, most of which had been held for at least a hundred or more years for a pittance and often nothing in return. My father and his father and all of the uncles are bitter about this (many bitter right into their own graves) but not once, not ever did they consider suicide attacks against the park patrons. instead they did what the majority of refugees have done and still do, make do, resettle somewhere, anywhere and make the best of it. So, not to tell the palestinians to settle and make do, only to point out it's a **** analogy when comparitively few refugees have been offered re-settlement, ever.

russ_watters

Jul6-03, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by jcsd
Why 'the Arabs' didn't create a country is not the subject that can be fitted into one post but more likely an essay entitled: "Israel and Pan-Arabism", in short before 1967 Egypt and Jordan occupied the WB and GS. Yes....? Thats my question. Why didn't Egypt and/or Jordan create a "Palestine"? You didn't answer the question.For a start, it was Israel who started the 1967 war, their claim of pre-emptive action is not completely unjustified but still contentious. Israel started the war? Hitler said the Poles started WWII.... Sorry, but when someone lines tanks up on your border, thats an act of war. Israel may have fired the first shot, but the war was already on. It's to completely misunderstand the Likud party and the settlemnt movement to say that Israel is willing to give back the OTs to the Palestinians Well they can't give land *BACK* to the "Palestinians" because the "Palestinians" have never had any land (like you said - it was Syrian and Jordanian land) - but they have already started giving land *UP* to the "Palestinians."If immigrants came into your country... What country? There has never been a country called "Palestine." Like you said - it was Syra and Jordan. Why didn't Syria and/or Joran create a "Palestine"? Why does Israel have to? In any case, Israel *IS* going to create one because that is what is needed for peace (I hope).The two main areas of Palestinian infrastructure ... "Palestinian infrastructure..." HA HA ! HA ! HA ! What's that ? A sand dune ? I wouldn't even go that far, drag. A figment of one's imagination can't have any infrastructure at all...can you point out the U.N. resolutions against the jordanian and Egyptian occupation during this period? I'm having an awful time finding them. Interesting point, kat - why didn't the UN take any act- harsh language against Egypt an Jordan when they occupied that territory?

drag

Jul6-03, 01:03 AM

Greetings !

Guys/Gals I do not know whether jcsd is indeed a history
major and I do not know whether if he is then he's maybe
a history major from a Muslim country but it is clear
from his adressing of the water issue for one thing that
he does have extensive knowldge on the conflict and that
he is and will use it and twist it to justify his enitially
(without the info) biased opinion. Thus arguing with such a
person is mostly useless which is why I stopped doing that.

BTW, just to refer to his last message which I did not answer:
I was talking about all infrastructure not just water. Besides
even despite the poor amount of water pumped to the Palestinians
and the bad status of the infrastructure - much of which is
there because of Israel in the first place, and the partially
understandable restrictions on wells and exploitation, Israel
still takes action to supply the Palestinians which under the
curcampstance is quite commendable. The water from the Mountain
Aquifier that is partially taken from Palestinian territories
is not that great if you ragard the practical borders rather
than those of 1967, and after all Israel is still in control
as long as the Palestinians don't wise up quit the terror and
get a grip. Some shamefull cases with the water supply are known
but the rest is just a clear result of the security situatation.
Noone will go fix a pump or a tube when he will surely get shot in
the proccess.

As for the Sauidi intiative I did not deny it, but it was never
seriously offered or considered by all the relevant parties
involved. It was a cheap publicity trick and that's it. Only
someone with complete misunderstanding of the whole issue
(and of the way the Arab mentality works), and you do not
appear to be such a person [;)], would claim that it was a real initiative that ever had any chance.

Live long and prosper.

jcsd

Jul6-03, 05:51 AM

I'm a history major from England (I was orginally a physics major but I changed after the first year, long story).

You say there never was such a country as Palestine (well actually there was, but it wasn't independant) but does that mean that someone can just come along and throw the Palestinians off their land because they don't have their own country or deny them basic human rights and attack their infrastructure (btw Israel has never been involved in Palestinian infrastructure, the Palestinians and various aid agencies built it up). The amount of water per settler in the OT is roughly 5 times the amount per Palestinian.

I'm afraid the Saudi initiative was serious, though the Muslim countries did recognise that a Likud government was unlikely to accept it, even though it was pretty much exactly the same as a UN touted peace plan.

jcsd

Jul6-03, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by kat
I'm sure you're equally aware that who "started" the 1967 war is equally contentious?
[/B] hmm, can you point out the U.N. resolutions against the jordanian and Egyptian occupation during this period? I'm having an awful time finding them.[/b]

Well Jordan and Egypt claimed to be holding the West Bank and Gaza in trusteeship for the P{alestinians howevre the UN generally recognized territory won in 1948, though not explusion from the territories.
all the concessions? interesting, what type of concessions were they offering to insure Israel's security? and what were they offering in place of ROR?

Recognition, co-operation.
You know, this is always an interesting study. I have a real life American parallel for you..
In the late 1930's during all of the wonderful civil service projects my families homeland (almost 300 acres of farmland in Prince William Co, VA area) was taken in order to build a beautiful park for all to visit, it was touted as an opportunity for the poor blah blah. Basicly what it all amounted to was booting the poor blacks, Irish and the few native americans that had somehow managed to similate off their own land, most of which had been held for at least a hundred or more years for a pittance and often nothing in return. My father and his father and all of the uncles are bitter about this (many bitter right into their own graves) but not once, not ever did they consider suicide attacks against the park patrons. instead they did what the majority of refugees have done and still do, make do, resettle somewhere, anywhere and make the best of it. So, not to tell the palestinians to settle and make do, only to point out it's a **** analogy when comparitively few refugees have been offered re-settlement, ever.
Is that anyway analogus? I do not think so. What happened is hundreds of thoudands of peole where forced off their ancestral lands so that foreign immigrants could live there and that an artifical Jewish majority could be maintained in those lands. Where not talking about the building of munmicpal works here. What's more analogous is German policy in the East during the second world war when slavs where thrown off their land so that ethnic Germans could settle there.

jcsd

Jul6-03, 06:10 AM

I really do advise people to look more at the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel has consistently broken Un resolutions and has keeped what amounts to a third of the population it contols in a state of limbo with no legal rights.

Zero

Jul6-03, 08:44 AM

kat

Jul6-03, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by jcsd
Well Jordan and Egypt claimed to be holding the West Bank and Gaza in trusteeship for the P{alestinians howevre the UN generally recognized territory won in 1948, though not explusion from the territories. could you expand on this a bit? I'd like to be sure that I'm fully understanding your statement.

Originally posted by jcsd

Recognition, co-operation.
You stated that the initiative covered "all the concessions" that the Israeli's were looking for, do you really believe promises of recognition, and statements of co-operation covers a statement such as "all the concessions"? and Again, I ask you, what was the initiatives resolution to ROR?

Originally posted by jcsd

Is that anyway analogus? I do not think so. What happened is hundreds of thoudands of peole where forced off their ancestral lands so that foreign immigrants could live there and that an artifical Jewish majority could be maintained in those lands. Where not talking about the building of munmicpal works here. What's more analogous is German policy in the East during the second world war when slavs where thrown off their land so that ethnic Germans could settle there.

I think the loss of homeland is an apt comparision, unless you somehow equate a Palistinian Arabs loss as greater then that of Southern United states blacks and a handful of Irish-Cherokee descendants who had lived on the same miles upon miles of land for generations, my cherokee gr-grandmother on the land of her ancestors and all that being removed AGAIN would entail. IF you wish to make that irrelevent in the debate fine.....
I can put that aside,
BUT during the same decade as that which gave birth to the palestinian-arab refugees hundreds of thousands of Jews who survived the holocaust were put into refugee camps and finally resettled elsewhere, (some to Israel but many to other areas as well) they were not returned. The complete German speaking population of Czechoslavakia was expelled, and sent to Germany. They were not returned to Czechoslavakia. Millions of Hindus left what became Pakistan and were resettled in India, and millions of Muslims left India and were resettled in Pakistan/Bangladesh. People were also displaced by governemnt actions in China and Russia in that decade, and the overwhelming majority were resettled, not returned. Overall, of all the millions of human beings who lost their homes as a result of the conflicts in the 40s, as far as I can tell, only a very small minority were able to ever return to their original villages.

As for future dialogue it is IMO better to leave WW2 analogies on the side as there are lots of examples of war time occupations that have nothing to do with germans and nazis. By using other examples there is a greater chance of lowering the level of animosity in replies and keeping the conversation civil.

jcsd

Jul6-03, 09:03 AM

The ROR was to be dealt with under resolution 242, but would of probably of been reliquinshed (the phrase was "a fair settlement").

So it's ok for the Israelis to say "you can't live here because your an Arab", in the exam[ple you mentioned you were talking about the displacements of minorities, not the displacement of the majority.

Yes Zero that's what I hate the slavish support of Israel even to go as far as supporting ethnic cleansing, particularly when only a patchy knowledge of the conflict is possesed.

Lebensraum is exactly analogous as it is the settlemnt and the displacemnt of the majority by the minority in order to rebuild some real or imagined homeland.

kat

Jul6-03, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Zero
I hate to tell you, but most of the people on this thread are going to support any and every action by Israel, no matter what. Even the crimes of individual Israelis against Palestinians seem to be justified, somehow. If I were you, I would just give up, because they aren't interested in any facts(no even their own), that contradict the false notion that Israel is nearly always in the right.

The fact that Israel was established as a racists state never even occurs to them.

I'm quite sure that I can speak for all of the people on this forum when I thank you for your absolutely unbiased and thought provoking comments, Mr. mentor. It is an absolute gift to have someone guiding this thread, nay, this forum, with such thought provoking comments as put forth by yourself. I applaud you and all of your "factually" based comments and your obvious support of open and productive, civil discourse. I'm equally grateful for you uncanny ability to read all of our minds, unite us together in one collective unit and aptly identify all of our faults and weaknesses! Thank you, thank you!

Zero

Jul6-03, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by kat
I'm quite sure that I can speak for all of the people on this forum when I thank you for your absolutely unbiased and thought provoking comments, Mr. mentor. It is an absolute gift to have someone guiding this thread, nay, this forum, with such thought provoking comments as put forth by yourself. I applaud you and all of your "factually" based comments and your obvious support of open and productive, civil discourse. I'm equally grateful for you uncanny ability to read all of our minds, unite us together in one collective unit and aptly identify all of our faults and weaknesses! Thank you, thank you!

All part of the service, me pointing out your blind spots when it comes to Israel. You guys are so insightful otherwise.

Oh, and those shoes don't match your outfit.

kat

Jul6-03, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Zero
All part of the service, me pointing out your blind spots when it comes to Israel. You guys are so insightful otherwise.

Oh, and those shoes don't match your outfit.

There would likely be less blind spots if you were to find occasion to back your statements up with more facts and references and less vitriolic hyperbole. FZ does a great job of interacting in civil discourse, he even occasionally changes my opinion on this topic as well as a few others, maybe you should consult with him on occasion. At any rate, I believe it is often less about being "right" and more often about an exchange of ideas. Civil discourse vs. hyperbole has a greater chance of allowing for productive exchanges.

Oh, btw, you need to have your eyes checked sweetie, a T, barefeet and polished toes are a natural match.[;)]

Zero

Jul6-03, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by kat
There would likely be less blind spots if you were to find occasion to back your statements up with more facts and references and less vitriolic hyperbole. FZ does a great job of interacting in civil discourse, he even occasionally changes my opinion on this topic as well as a few others, maybe you should consult with him on occasion. At any rate, I believe it is often less about being "right" and more often about an exchange of ideas. Civil discourse vs. hyperbole has a greater chance of allowing for productive exchanges.

Oh, btw, you need to have your eyes checked sweetie, a T, barefeet and polished toes are a natural match.[;)]

Yeah, I was a little over the top. Continue.

kat

Jul6-03, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by jcsd
The ROR was to be dealt with under resolution 242, but would of probably of been reliquinshed (the phrase was "a fair settlement"). Well, my memory has "a fair settlement" being mentioned on the one side and mention of ROR on the other, but surely you don't equate this ambigious statement "fair settlement" as a resolution to ROR and "covering all the concessions" Israel was looking for?

and once more I will ask you,
"You stated that the initiative covered "all the concessions" that the Israeli's were looking for, do you really believe promises of recognition, and statements of co-operation covers a statement such as "all the concessions"?'

Originally posted by jcsd
[B]
So it's ok for the Israelis to say "you can't live here because your an Arab", in the exam[ple you mentioned you were talking about the displacements of minorities, not the displacement of the majority. If you want to ask this in a less simplistic manner, recognizing the nuances of the various situations I might be inclined to answer it. Arab's do live in Israel, as active members of the government and with full voting rights, so your question is an intentional "set up" I'm not buying into.

Originally posted by jcsd

Lebensraum is exactly analogous as it is the settlemnt and the displacemnt of the majority by the minority in order to rebuild some real or imagined homeland.

Ah, I. C. I suppose you are correct, there are parrallels to be made, except that I think you may have it a bit backwards and I still think it is better to avoid Nazi germany comparisions as they are unnecesary, distortive and rely on an appeal to emotionism that is particularly obnoxious when speaking of israel IMO

Bah, I've run out of time. I will get back to you on this later.

jcsd

Jul6-03, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by kat
Well, my memory has "a fair settlement" being mentioned on the one side and mention of ROR on the other, but surely you don't equate this ambigious statement "fair settlement" as a resolution to ROR and "covering all the concessions" Israel was looking for?

and once more I will ask you,
"You stated that the initiative covered "all the concessions" that the Israeli's were looking for, do you really believe promises of recognition, and statements of co-operation covers a statement such as "all the concessions"?'

If you want to ask this in a less simplistic manner, recognizing the nuances of the various situations I might be inclined to answer it. Arab's do live in Israel, as active members of the government and with full voting rights, so your question is an intentional "set up" I'm not buying into.

Ah, I. C. I suppose you are correct, there are parrallels to be made, except that I think you may have it a bit backwards and I still think it is better to avoid Nazi germany comparisions as they are unnecesary, distortive and rely on an appeal to emotionism that is particularly obnoxious when speaking of israel IMO

Bah, I've run out of time. I will get back to you on this later. [/B]

What other concessions do you expect them to make, conceding Israel's right to the pre-1967 land is a huge concession.

I am well aware of the Israeli constitutional situation in Israel (though Israeli citizen Arabs are subject to quite a lot of discrimanation and racism including laws targetted against them), I was referring to the fact israel has ruled over the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories for 35 years yet they have absolutely no rights.

The situation is analogous and is the only historical analogy I can tjink of, just because the perpetrators are Israeli doesn't make it right.

drag

Jul6-03, 03:15 PM

Greetings !
Originally posted by jcsd
You say there never was such a country as Palestine (well actually there was, but it wasn't independant) but does that mean that someone can just come along and throw the Palestinians off their land because they don't have their own country or deny them basic human rights and attack their infrastructure
That is a lie. They were not thrown off their land, they did
have their own country for a very short while (on paper, at least)
they are not denied basic human rights and their infrastructure
is not attacked unless you mean their terrorist government
lead by Yaser Arafat, until now.
Originally posted by jcsd
I'm afraid the Saudi initiative was serious, though the Muslim countries did recognise that a Likud government was unlikely to accept it, even though it was pretty much exactly the same as a UN touted peace plan.
That is also a lie. Anyone with as considrable knowledge
as you appear to have should know that NEVER would a leading
Israeli political party and its government (whatever that
party is Likud/Labour) accept such an initiative. Which is
of course due the simple fact that Israel is a democratic
country and the majority of Israelis will NEVER support a
full retreat to the 1967 borders under current conditions.

Live long and prosper.

drag

Jul6-03, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by jcsd
(though Israeli citizen Arabs are subject to quite a lot of discrimanation and racism including laws targetted against them),
That is a lie. There are no discriminating laws, there are
laws that are there for security reasons. You could call some
of them discriminating but that is a clear mistake and
ignores the reasons for these laws. If you had citizens inside
your country who don't want it, you wouldn't let them serve
in the military force that defends it or allow them access to
secret military installations. Since security means people's lives
I'd regard this as a lot less racial than for example immigration
laws in western countries which exist for political and economical
reasons.
Originally posted by jcsd
I was referring to the fact israel has ruled over the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories for 35 years yet they have absolutely no rights.
They granted basic human rights. Some violations may exist
when it comes to legal and government situation, but then
again, it's not like there's an alternative until the Palestinians
are ready to co-exist with Israel and form a reasonable
government that will not nagotiate through murder.
Originally posted by jcsd
The situation is analogous and is the only historical analogy I can think of, just because the perpetrators are Israeli doesn't make it right.
Well your analogy sucks. Which is probably also an indication
of the one who made it. Purhaps there weren't enough suicide
bombers blowing up on the streets of your country recently.
Not to mention what countries like the US or UK would do
if that happened.

drag

Jul6-03, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by jcsd
I really do advise people to look more at the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel has consistently broken Un resolutions and has keeped what amounts to a third of the population it contols in a state of limbo with no legal rights.
The UN is a pethetic organization that clearly outlived it's
usefullness in the modern world. It is full of corruption
which is precisely the way it works. It is inconcievable that
Israel would even be able to pass a single resolution
condemning any arab state in even the littlest wrong doing
even if the arabs won and were butchering every last Israeli,
if it were not for US's support in the UN. The arab countries
are numerous and oil rules the world. No country cares about
countries a long distance away, each country just cares for
its own intrests. It is fortunate that the US has the power
to stand as the world's example of a country that does
care about principles in the world, it is its interst in many
other fields too, but that doesn't change this basic fact.
The UN is further rediculous because in the modern world
of the 21st century it gives full rights to non-democratic
countries, to murderers and insane dictators while the
only reasonable way to deal with such regimes is to send'em
to hell. There is no reason whatsoever to trust the actual
validity and connection to reality of any resolution or claim
issued by the UN's corrupt officials and their pathetic
descision making process.

Zero

Jul6-03, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by kat

Ah, I. C. I suppose you are correct, there are parrallels to be made, except that I think you may have it a bit backwards and I still think it is better to avoid Nazi germany comparisions as they are unnecesary, distortive and rely on an appeal to emotionism that is particularly obnoxious when speaking of israel IMO

There are certain parallels...and while it is emotionally charged, it is also a fair comparison, since what we are discussing is the formation of country based on race and religion, that came out of the acts of a government who acted because of race and religion. Israel exists because of an idea parallel(but opposite0 to the Nazi idea; that Jewish people are different from other people, and should be segragated from other people.

drag

Jul6-03, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by Zero
that Jewish people are different from other people, and should be segragated from other people.
Precisely the way any other nation on the globe feels. Except
that most of them were always on their homeland, even if conquered, rather than dispersed across many other countries while their land
was siezed by their enemies. Many nations that did suffer this
fate do not exist anymore. Jewdaism as a unifying religion
prevented this from happening to the Jewish people for 2
millenia.

Live long and prosper.

Zero

Jul6-03, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by drag
Precisely the way any other nation on the globe feels. Except
that most of them were always on their homeland, even if conquered, rather than dispersed across many other countries while their land
was siezed by their enemies. Many nations that did suffer this
fate do not exist anymore. Jewdaism as a unifying religion
prevented this from happening to the Jewish people for 2
millenia.

Live long and prosper.

To quote some of your political comrades...war is tough, the Israelis should get over it. especially since it happened over a thousand years ago.

drag

Jul6-03, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by Zero
To quote some of your political comrades...war is tough, the Israelis should get over it. especially since it happened over a thousand years ago.
The Jews did get over it...[;)]

Ivan Seeking

Jul6-03, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by drag
The Jews did get over it...[;)]

Hey Drag, how would you feel about the US staying out of the Middle East? Would you support:
A full withdrawl of all troops
No more weapons sales to anyone
No more financial support or aid
[Assuming of course that through the up and coming Hydrogen industry we no longer need the oil]

I'm not fishing here; just curious.

jcsd

Jul6-03, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

That is a lie. They were not thrown off their land, they did
have their own country for a very short while (on paper, at least)
they are not denied basic human rights and their infrastructure
is not attacked unless you mean their terrorist government
lead by Yaser Arafat, until now.

Yes there were several well reported clearances and massacres by Jewish defence and terrorist organisations and roughly 700,000 Arabs either fled or were expelled.

That is also a lie. Anyone with as considrable knowledge
as you appear to have should know that NEVER would a leading
Israeli political party and its government (whatever that
party is Likud/Labour) accept such an initiative. Which is
of course due the simple fact that Israel is a democratic
country and the majority of Israelis will NEVER support a
full retreat to the 1967 borders under current conditions.

Live long and prosper.

You do not understand Likud. Likud (or more correctly the two parties it was formed out of, one of themselevs an amalmation of two pre-1948 terrorist organisations) were a dying party until they started to support the settler movement, it is clear from their rhetoric especially of the right of the party that they do not wish to withdraw (infact an end to the conflict would certainly be a death-knell to figures like Netanyahu and Sharon who owe their postions to the shifting of Israeli politics to the right as a result of the conflict).

jcsd

Jul6-03, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by drag
That is a lie. There are no discriminating laws, there are
laws that are there for security reasons. You could call some
of them discriminating but that is a clear mistake and
ignores the reasons for these laws. If you had citizens inside
your country who don't want it, you wouldn't let them serve
in the military force that defends it or allow them access to
secret military installations. Since security means people's lives
I'd regard this as a lot less racial than for example immigration
laws in western countries which exist for political and economical
reasons.
Recently groups such as HRW, have reported several laws that are specifically targetted against Israeli-Arabs, such as the reduction of child benefit to families who do not serve in the IDF (though the strict Orthodox Jews were also affected by this there exists a seperate fund that they can claim from not accesible to Arabs). Also at the moment there is a row over a law that will stop someone from claiming automatic citzenship if they have a Palestinian parent, even if they meet all the other criteria.

They granted basic human rights. Some violations may exist
when it comes to legal and government situation, but then
again, it's not like there's an alternative until the Palestinians
are ready to co-exist with Israel and form a reasonable
government that will not nagotiate through murder.
Until a couple of years ago it was perfectly legal for the Israeli security services to torture Palestinas in their custody, even with reforms torture is still not illegal. Palestinians have virtually no legal protection against there land being taken by Israelis and against attacks by settler militias.

Well your analogy sucks. Which is probably also an indication
of the one who made it. Purhaps there weren't enough suicide
bombers blowing up on the streets of your country recently.
Not to mention what countries like the US or UK would do
if that happened.

I remember 'the troubles', so I am perfectly aware of what it's like to live with the threat of terrorism. The analogy is not unfair but I will not labour the point.

jcsd

Jul6-03, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by drag
The UN is a pethetic organization that clearly outlived it's
usefullness in the modern world. It is full of corruption
which is precisely the way it works. It is inconcievable that
Israel would even be able to pass a single resolution
condemning any arab state in even the littlest wrong doing
even if the arabs won and were butchering every last Israeli,
if it were not for US's support in the UN. The arab countries
are numerous and oil rules the world. No country cares about
countries a long distance away, each country just cares for
its own intrests. It is fortunate that the US has the power
to stand as the world's example of a country that does
care about principles in the world, it is its interst in many
other fields too, but that doesn't change this basic fact.
The UN is further rediculous because in the modern world
of the 21st century it gives full rights to non-democratic
countries, to murderers and insane dictators while the
only reasonable way to deal with such regimes is to send'em
to hell. There is no reason whatsoever to trust the actual
validity and connection to reality of any resolution or claim
issued by the UN's corrupt officials and their pathetic
descision making process.

Just because the UN does not agree with your point of view is no reason to rubbish it (particularly without pointing out a single unfair UNSC resolution), I couild point to other NGOs like AI and HRW.

I also remind you that no Arab countries have permanent seats on the UNSC and the spectre of an Arab oil cartel running the UN is just as absurd as the notion of ZOG.

Zero

Jul6-03, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by drag
The Jews did get over it...[;)]

If they did, there would be no Israel, and fewer problems in the Middle East. Of course, the world instead decided to create a state based on racism on Arab land.

russ_watters

Jul7-03, 05:03 PM

russ_watters

Jul7-03, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Zero
If they did, there would be no Israel, and fewer problems in the Middle East. Of course, the world instead decided to create a state based on racism on Arab land. Based on racism? Arabs in Israel have more rights than Arabs anywhere else in the Middle East. And only one side of this conflict has ever (and depending who you ask may still) had the goal of extermination of the other side.

Israel's existence isn't based on racism. Opposition to Israel (in the Middle East) is based on racism.

Zero

Jul8-03, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
Based on racism? Arabs in Israel have more rights than Arabs anywhere else in the Middle East. And only one side of this conflict has ever (and depending who you ask may still) had the goal of extermination of the other side.

Israel's existence isn't based on racism. Opposition to Israel (in the Middle East) is based on racism.

A Jewish state isn't based on race?!?

russ_watters

Jul8-03, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Zero
A Jewish state isn't based on race?!? Yes, I suppose a "Jewish state" would be based on race. Israel is not based on being Jewish so it is therefore not a "Jewish state".

Zero

Jul8-03, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
Yes, I suppose a "Jewish state" would be based on race. Israel is not based on being Jewish so it is therefore not a "Jewish state".

The Jewish homeland is not based on being Jewish?

drag

Jul8-03, 03:58 PM

Greetings !
Originally posted by russ_watters
Seconded. Sig.
I agree.
Originally posted by Zero
A Jewish state isn't based on race?!?
Yes. It is not based on racism - which is a completely
different thing. It treats its citizens equally as is
reasonably possible and it is no more racist than the US
about Americans, the UK about British and so on.
Originally posted by russ_watters
Israel's existence isn't based on racism. Opposition to Israel (in the Middle East) is based on racism.
Precisely.
Originally posted by Zero
Of course, the world instead decided to create a state based on racism on Arab land.
The world had very little to do with this and it is NOT
arab land. Israel formed just a bit later than most
other countries in the region and earlier than others.
Originally posted by jcsd
Yes there were several well reported clearances and massacres by Jewish defence and terrorist organisations and roughly 700,000 Arabs either fled or were expelled.
Several ?! I specificly know of one. The arabs were not
expelled at all. Those that fled did it of their own
free will.
Originally posted by jcsd
You do not understand Likud. Likud (or more correctly the two parties it was formed out of, one of themselevs an amalmation of two pre-1948 terrorist organisations) were a dying party until they started to support the settler movement, it is clear from their rhetoric especially of the right of the party that they do not wish to withdraw (infact an end to the conflict would certainly be a death-knell to figures like Netanyahu and Sharon who owe their postions to the shifting of Israeli politics to the right as a result of the conflict).
You are completely ignoring what I'm telling you and
wasting time with irrelevant nonesense. Israelis will
NEVER agree to retreat to 1967 borders (including
the Golan Heights returned to Syria, aspecialy) in the
current or close to current situation. They were not even
fully prepared to do this in the optimistic time before
the current conflict. Israelis will NEVER, and this is under
ANY curcampstance, agree to accept the "right of return".
Originally posted by jcsd
Until a couple of years ago it was perfectly legal for the Israeli security services to torture Palestinas in their custody, even with reforms torture is still not illegal.
A fully relevant and acceptable means to deal with
constant high level of terrorism. Saving innocent lives, on
both sides is the most important thing. Same thing goes
for targeted bombings.
Originally posted by jcsd
Palestinians have virtually no legal protection against there land being taken by Israelis and against attacks by settler militias.
The Palestinians had no gevernment and later had one that
was impossible to reasonably deal with, as was later proved.
The settlements were initially constructed when Israelis were
called to protect the country against the terrorist organizations
and possible return of the defeated armies of surrounding arab
countries. There was nothing defined to deal with.

As for settlers they are being dealt with and sent to jail too.
It is not easy to deal with such people in such a situation
and in such no man's land territories where the IDF has to
deal with people on both sides.
Originally posted by jcsd
I remember 'the troubles', so I am perfectly aware of what it's like to live with the threat of terrorism.
You make me laugh. [:D]
Originally posted by jcsd
Recently groups such as HRW, have reported several laws that are specifically targetted against Israeli-Arabs, such as the reduction of child benefit to families who do not serve in the IDF (though the strict Orthodox Jews were also affected by this there exists a seperate fund that they can claim from not accesible to Arabs). Also at the moment there is a row over a law that will stop someone from claiming automatic citzenship if they have a Palestinian parent, even if they meet all the other criteria.
As for the first that is a delibarate lie. This law is the
result of the economic crisys Israel currently experiences.
The law is NOT limmited to those who did not serve in the IDF
but to all the citizens. The law limmits the greatly exhagerated
payments to all families with many kids and was originally
passed through pressure of the religious segments of the
population who have many kids. The Jewish religious sections
are quite politicly influential despite the fact that they've
lost a lot of political power lately (which is why the law
was accepted), so they've more resources. On the other hand
the arab segments of the population are more indpendent.

As for the second law, the Palestinians are trying to receive
Israeli citizenship at all costs in consdirable amounts, many
threough illegal manipulations assisted by Israeli arabs.
This phenomenon is requires more strict control of the entire
process.
Originally posted by jcsd
Just because the UN does not agree with your point of
view is no reason to rubbish it
Yes it is, my point of view is right, according to the UN's
own long forgotten priciples of protection of human life.
Some necessary principles were not even part of its agenda
in the first place - like democracy, which is the reason
for its pathetic performance.
Originally posted by jcsd
(particularly without pointing out a single unfair UNSC resolution),

You mean resolutions that were incorrect according to
the basic principles modern democratic societies think
we should ussualy accept (except extreme curcampstance) -
of human life, rights and democracy ?
I'm afraid that the lenght of the server space of this
forum is insufficient for me to specify all such descicions
and lack of them when required. [;)]
Originally posted by jcsd
I also remind you that no Arab countries have permanent seats on the UNSC and the spectre of an Arab oil cartel running the UN is just as absurd as the notion of ZOG.
What's ZOG ?
You are trying to delibrately twist what I say, again.
I never said that the Arab countries "run the UN". I said
that their economical influence and their influence due
to pure numbers of people and countries (despite the fact that
almost all of these countries are not democratic - and never the less treated as equal to democratic which is one of the main clear absurdities in the UN) is quite sufficient to shift relativly
inconsequential (to most of the world) descisions in their
favour and against Israel due to the particuilar intrests of
every voting member country. The same pathetic discision making
is ussualy made on all the other issues in the UN, when each
country ussualy votes for its own intrests with complete
and often rather blunt disregard of any moral principles
much of the modern world claims to adopt. Further more,
countries often tend to obscure the true nature of such
votes by delibrately using and even supporting the ignorance
of their general public on the relevant issues.

Peace and long life.

jcsd

Jul8-03, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Several ?! I specificly know of one. The arabs were not
expelled at all. Those that fled did it of their own
free will.

Shows what you know there were several well-recorded expulsions(e.g. Beit Nuba) and famous incidences of Irgun butchery such as the Deir Yassin massacre.

You are completely ignoring what I'm telling you and
wasting time with irrelevant nonesense. Israelis will
NEVER agree to retreat to 1967 borders (including
the Golan Heights returned to Syria, aspecialy) in the
current or close to current situation. They were not even
fully prepared to do this in the optimistic time before
the current conflict. Israelis will NEVER, and this is under
ANY curcampstance, agree to accept the "right of return".

Well the Palestinians will never accept anything less than a return to the 1967-borders, the settlements are founded on racist principals and while they are in the OT the rest of the world is always likely to view the Palestinians in a more favourable light than the Israelis.

Quite frankly if Israel is never going to offer a fair peace deal, then there will always be terrorism.

A fully relevant and acceptable means to deal with
constant high level of terrorism. Saving innocent lives, on
both sides is the most important thing. Same thing goes
for targeted bombings.
So surely if it's okay to kill people and bomb suspected miltants even when there with their families the Palestinians can justify suicide bombings as the level of suffering caused by Palestinian terrorist pales in comparison with the level of suffering caused by the IDF.

The Palestinians had no gevernment and later had one that
was impossible to reasonably deal with, as was later proved.
The settlements were initially constructed when Israelis were
called to protect the country against the terrorist organizations
and possible return of the defeated armies of surrounding arab
countries. There was nothing defined to deal with.

The PLO has been recognised as the legitmate government of Palestine since circa 1970 and PNC is even older. The settlements do nothing for Israels security and have been consistenly described by UNSC resolutions as 'an obstacle to peace'.

As for settlers they are being dealt with and sent to jail too.
It is not easy to deal with such people in such a situation
and in such no man's land territories where the IDF has to
deal with people on both sides.

Israel is responsible for the actions of the settlers yet it very rarely prosecutes them, and usually obstructs any investigation into wrong-doing by them (for example an Israeli soldier witnessed the murder of a Palestian by a group of settlers and Israeli security forces but was contiunely told to 'drop it').

You make me laugh. [:D]

Well, perhaps you should learn more about the conflict then.

As for the first that is a delibarate lie. This law is the
result of the economic crisys Israel currently experiences.
The law is NOT limmited to those who did not serve in the IDF
but to all the citizens. The law limmits the greatly exhagerated
payments to all families with many kids and was originally
passed through pressure of the religious segments of the
population who have many kids. The Jewish religious sections
are quite politicly influential despite the fact that they've
lost a lot of political power lately (which is why the law
was accepted), so they've more resources. On the other hand
the arab segments of the population are more indpendent.

No, this law was a specfic reduction of child benefit to all familes who didn't serve in the IDF and was generally called racist by human rights groups worldwide.

As for the second law, the Palestinians are trying to receive
Israeli citizenship at all costs in consdirable amounts, many
threough illegal manipulations assisted by Israeli arabs.
This phenomenon is requires more strict control of the entire
process.

No, this law will stop Palestinains who are LEGALLY entitled to live in Israel from claiming citzenship (for example they may have a Jewish or Israeli parents)
Yes it is, my point of view is right, according to the UN's
own long forgotten priciples of protection of human life.
Some necessary principles were not even part of its agenda
in the first place - like democracy, which is the reason
for its pathetic performance.

Again, ignorance.

You mean resolutions that were incorrect according to
the basic principles modern democratic societies think
we should ussualy accept (except extreme curcampstance) -
of human life, rights and democracy ?
I'm afraid that the lenght of the server space of this
forum is insufficient for me to specify all such descicions
and lack of them when required. [;)]

So again no specifc UNSC resolutions mentioned (even though the ones that passed did so wuth the tacit consent of the US), I think your just talking crap.

What's ZOG ?
You are trying to delibrately twist what I say, again.
I never said that the Arab countries "run the UN". I said
that their economical influence and their influence due
to pure numbers of people and countries (despite the fact that
almost all of these countries are not democratic - and never the less treated as equal to democratic which is one of the main clear absurdities in the UN) is quite sufficient to shift relativly
inconsequential (to most of the world) descisions in their
favour and against Israel due to the particuilar intrests of
every voting member country. The same pathetic discision making
is ussualy made on all the other issues in the UN, when each
country ussualy votes for its own intrests with complete
and often rather blunt disregard of any moral principles
much of the modern world claims to adopt. Further more,
countries often tend to obscure the true nature of such
votes by delibrately using and even supporting the ignorance
of their general public on the relevant issues.

This shows you no nothing about the internal politics of the UN, Arab countries are routinely criticized by the UN.

Peace and long life. [/QUOTE]

drag

Jul8-03, 05:34 PM

Greetings !
Originally posted by jcsd
Shows what you know there were several well-recorded expulsions(e.g. Beit Nuba) and famous incidences of Irgun butchery such as the Deir Yassin massacre.
Even if that is true, these are small and isolated incidents with
the spicific perpetrators being the guilty ones.
Originally posted by jcsd
Well the Palestinians will never accept anything less than a return to the 1967-borders, the settlements are founded on racist principals and while they are in the OT the rest of the world is always likely to view the Palestinians in a more favourable light than the Israelis.

I disagree. I think they will. The settlements have nothing
to do with racist principles whatsoever, they were good
security for the country and good politics once, now they're
bad security and bad politics and full of fanatics.
Originally posted by jcsd
Quite frankly if Israel is never going to offer a fair peace deal, then there will always be terrorism.
And there is only ONE way to deal with terrorism.
Originally posted by jcsd
So surely if it's okay to kill people and bomb suspected miltants even when there with their families the Palestinians can justify suicide bombings as the level of suffering caused by Palestinian terrorist pales in comparison with the level of suffering caused by the IDF.
On some occasions inoccents do get hurt when targeted
assasinations take place and yet the IDF takes the greatest
care to avoid such casualties and sometimes deals with those that
make such severe mistakes if they were neglegent. Nevertheless,
this is the best method od dealing with terrorists.
The alternatives all envolve much greater potential casualty
rates on both sides and it is inconcievable that a terrorist
who is preparing an attack will not be stopped.
Originally posted by jcsd
The PLO has been recognised as the legitmate government of Palestine since circa 1970 and PNC is even older. The settlements do nothing for Israels security and have been consistenly described by UNSC resolutions as 'an obstacle to peace'.
They are. As for all those "international" organizations
I already expressed my opinion about the UN. [;)]
I remember those poor Belgians also wanted to put
Bush and others on trial until it was quite clearly suggested
to them that their whole pathetic deal with the "intrenational
court" will be dealt with appropriately and they "reconsidered".
Seriously, someone should put a lid on these pathetic weed smokers' "intrenational" parties who think they're the most
beautifull moral crystal clear peace flowers around. Who the
hell are they to tell who and what is right or wrong unless
they've been there, seen it and spilled their blood there.
Pathetic...[:((] Western Europe has stopped being the center
power of the world long ago, but some of the countries there still think that they, from the perspective of almost 0 experience in
real conflicts in the past half a century and their primary
EU problems being environmental issues, can dictate the rest
of the world how it should live. Where were they 60 years ago
with all that moral crap ?
The Russians should've kept on going a bit...[;)]
Originally posted by jcsd
Israel is responsible for the actions of the settlers yet it very rarely prosecutes them, and usually obstructs any investigation into wrong-doing by them (for example an Israeli soldier witnessed the murder of a Palestian by a group of settlers and Israeli security forces but was contiunely told to 'drop it').
Not true. Any reference to this case ?
Originally posted by jcsd
Well, perhaps you should learn more about the conflict then.

I was actually answering your claim of "being aware what it's
like". [:D]
Originally posted by jcsd
No, this law was a specfic reduction of child benefit to all familes who didn't serve in the IDF and was generally called racist by human rights groups worldwide.
I believe you are mistaken (though not entirely certain).
Originally posted by jcsd
No, this law will stop Palestinains who are LEGALLY entitled to live in Israel from claiming citzenship (for example they may have a Jewish or Israeli parents)
If a person has a Palestinian parent then why should he
recieve citizenship automaticly ?
"LEGALLY" ? Israel defines what is legal and what is not
the same as any other country and its immigration laws.
Originally posted by jcsd
Again, ignorance.
Of course anyone who actually cares about the truth and
lives of other human beings rather than his own pocket is
ignorant. That's why the UN's filled with "smart" people. [;)]
Originally posted by jcsd
So again no specifc UNSC resolutions mentioned (even though the ones that passed did so wuth the tacit consent of the US), I think your just talking crap.
No you are just talking crap and further more with your
level of knowledge it is also clear that you delibrately
lie. Here's a small taste on this issue from the first link
I found, there is a countless number of others like I said
and a great deal of others that are related to other
issues and other countries.
http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200304/FOR20030422d.shtml
Originally posted by jcsd
This shows you no nothing about the internal politics of
the UN, Arab countries are routinely criticized by the UN.
"Criticized" ? [:D] They are dectatorships run by murederous
dictators and extreme Islamic fanatics they are not supposed
to be a part of any international organization much less make
discisions or head commities in such organizations in the 21st century. Spare me from this BS, please.

Peace and long life.

jcsd

Jul8-03, 05:44 PM

HRW: Arabs second class citizens in Israel (includes the child benefit laws)

B'tselem: Israeli non-enforcement of the law with regards to settlers:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel2/ISRAEL0901-13.htm

There quite a few massacres, Irgun who carried out the Deir Yassin massacre wher one of the largets Jewish militias fighting in the 1948 war and this was part of a wider policy to inspire terror in the Arabs in order that they would leave.

The IDF does not take any care to avoid civilian deaths, over hald the Palestinians it has killed have been non-combatants. 1/3 of the people killed in the targeted assasinations were also non-combatants, hardly "great care".

I do not know where yo acquired your dogmatic view that Israel can do no wrong.

kat

Jul8-03, 10:18 PM

The development of Israel was indicative of a race, persecuted throughout the arab kingdom, throughout the area called Palestine, throughout europe. SO yes Israel was formed out of racism, as the one place possibly on earth that they might escape to and live together safely after having been proven that it was not safe for them to depend on others to ensure their safety. That is the legacy of the beginning of Israel.

It's quite easy to figure out if the expulsions of the Arabs was really Zionist extermination philosophy or really a reaction to Arab violence, one can look to see if expressions of desire to expel Palestinians were always present among the leadership of the Zionist movement at about the same level, or if they increased substantially with increasing anti-Jewish attacks, especially the atrocities of the 1929 massacre which severely traumatized the Yishuv, and convinced many Jews that it was not possible to live with the Arabs. 1929 had the same effect on the Yishuv that Deir Yassin was to have on the Arab community in Palestine nearly 20 years later. The Arabs fled in terror after Deir Yassin. The Jews had NO PLACE to go after the 1929 massacres. All they could do was stay in place and suffer their increasing fears and terror.

Here is a quote of David Ben Gurion made in 1928, the year before the anti-Jewish massacres, to a gathering of Zionists in the Yishuv in Palestine: "Our sense of morality forbids us to deny the right of a single Arab child, even though by such denial we might attain all that we seek." now here is a quote from the SAME Zionist leader in 1929, just after the anti-Jewish atrocities: "We shall never be forgiven for the sin of weakness, should we even act as angels … Woe to the weak. That is the philosophy of history."

I know that you and Zero will simply discount these statements of Ben Gurion that don't fit your historical theories.
But there are many similar statements, made by the early Zionist leaders, that suggest the Zionists intention was NOT to evict or displace the Arabs, but to live in harmony with them. Victor Jacobson said in 1913 "the first article of our work-programme ought to be an entente with the Arabs." But after 1929, one finds more and more quotes that suggest fear, hatred and the desire to be separated from what was more and more seen as the enemy in a violent struggle for survival.

As to the Palestinians who were actually expelled by force in 1948, and those killed at Deir Yassin and Hebron ... gee, if the allegations are true, I guess they had just experienced what Jews had endured from Palestinian and other Arab majorities for more then fifty years until the Jews finally found a country of refuge in 1948, and nearly all left their homes, leaving everything behind and fled there.

drag

Jul9-03, 12:48 AM

Greetings !
Originally posted by jcsd
The IDF does not take any care to avoid civilian deaths, over hald the Palestinians it has killed have been non-combatants. 1/3 of the people killed in the targeted assasinations were also non-combatants, hardly "great care".
According to YOUR understanding of the statistics ? [:D]
The IDF takes the greatest care of avoiding civilian casualties
in such a complex situation, more than any other military force in
the world. It is clear that you understand very little
about military conflicts, aspecialy such a complex one
as this dealing with fanatic suicide terrorists who attack
with total disregard for their own or any other lives.
Ever seen the statistics of NATO's bombings in Serbia a
few years ago ? The fast invasion and capture of Baghdad
with exteremely low casuualties is just one example of what
US military commanders learned while spending time in the
field with the IDF forces in Israel and learning their first
level tactics.
Originally posted by jcsd
I do not know where yo acquired your dogmatic view that
Israel can do no wrong.
My view is not that Israel can do wrong, it is that
Israel does little intentional wrong because most of its actions
are forced upon it by the lack of choice in this complex
situation of dealing with crazy propoganda washed minds
of fanatic Muslim extremests in such great amount (and the
other Arab countries in the past). Israel never wanted or
initiated any military conflict ever, except the cases when
it was no longer possible to avoid it and it did sometimes
manage to launch pre-emptive attacks. I won't even mention
the fact that those statitics are only partially correct
because when accidently an intellegence failure leads
to more people in the company of the targeted terrorist getting killed in a targeted assasination or people get shot "while peacefully walking" near an agressive demonstartion or attack
of an IDF outpost with weapons in their hands or with snipers
hiding behind them as they throw stones and inflict damage,
these people are not exactly "innocent". You should see
the casualty statictics of the Israeli population.

The only dogmatic view I see here is yours and of people like
you who either know nothing or like you may know a lot and still
form their totally unjustified opinions by watching a
pelestinian who inspirationally shouts to the camera
that he's being massacared or scenes of mass funerals
of suicide bombers. Better watch the burnt remains of
the buses with the really innocent people who were on them.

P.S. What does your link have to do with what we've talked
about ? Not to mention that HRW is traditionally used to
condemn Israel on everything and not to further mention
that it condemns a huge amount of other countries for
many things. Did it condemn the Palestinian education system
as a terrorist educational institutionn which preaches murder
and extreme Muslim fanatism ? Hmm... I suppose that any
education will do for HRW as long as they get one, right ? [:D]
Did they mention that Jewish religious organizations get
a lot of money because of their misuse of their political
power and as wrong as that may seem to most other segments
in the Israeli population - Jewish or not Jewish, these
are internal political matters and exist in similar forms
in many other countries ?

Live long and prosper.

Zero

Jul9-03, 02:22 AM

What ever happened to David ben Gurion?

jcsd

Jul9-03, 05:00 AM

Kat- it is clear from earlier writings of zionist leaders such as Thomas Herzl that the plans to expel the Arabs existed well before 1929 and it was infact this fear of being dispossesed that motivated the violence against zionist settlers as before zionism you have to go back to the crusader period for attacks on Jews in Palestine.

drag- If they take such great care (a claim that is not borne out by the reports of human rights groups), how come there is no significant difference between the ratio of Israeli civilians/Israelisecurity forces killed(0.63) and Palestinian non-combatants/Palestinian miltants(~0.55), except that the Palestinian death toll is three times higher.

You attack HRW without knowing anything about it, it routinely reports on corruption and torture in the PA and releases reports on the wrongdoings of Palestinian terrorists. Israel is only one concern out of many for HRW, whose head is incidently Jewish.

I see a pattern here you routinely make an assertation, it's proved false yo make another then again are forced to retreat from your postion, would it not be a good idea to become more knowledgable on the subject before blindly defending everything that the Israeli government does?

Zero

Jul9-03, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by drag

The only dogmatic view I see here is yours and of people like
you who either know nothing or like you may know a lot and still
form their totally unjustified opinions by watching a
pelestinian who inspirationally shouts to the camera
that he's being massacared or scenes of mass funerals
of suicide bombers. Better watch the burnt remains of
the buses with the really innocent people who were on them.

So Palestinian children killed in missle attacks aren't innocent?

kat

Jul9-03, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by jcsd
Kat- it is clear from earlier writings of zionist leaders such as Thomas Herzl that the plans to expel the Arabs existed well before 1929 and it was infact this fear of being dispossesed that motivated the violence against zionist settlers as before zionism you have to go back to the crusader period for attacks on Jews in Palestine.

JSCD- The Zionist dream of a jewish state was similar to so many other of the political utopian dreams of the same period. The real development had little similarity with the dream. Today with the ability to see the history in the making we can realize how unrealistic these visions were. However, the utopian visions of Theodore Herzl most certainly included Arabs living among the jews. Herzl describes how he sees the future in his book "Altneuland" and if you have read it then you already know that the future as Herzl believed it could be was one with jews and arabs living together in harmony. Herzl believed that they would happily accept his vision of a future and he wrote about this in his diaries and depicted this in his novel. Like all dreamers he underestimated the opposition that his ideas would bring BUT Herzl and his dreams did not call for ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Palestine.
Herzl invisioned a state that would be so advanced that it would replace the current feudalism and that the new Zionist society would be too advanced to support the feudal condition that supprted serfdom in a practical state of slavery. In fact in his diary Herzl relates his thoughts of how the displaced serfs would have to be given a new place to live BUT those thoughts are very clearly about the issue of the newly developed society that had no support for the slavery like sitution of serfs. It was NOT about the lack of place for ARABS.
I'm supposing that your historical education arises from the writing of Edward Said who quotes Herzl's words in a dishonest fashion by cutting out sections of his comments mid-sentence and distorting his statements.
This is the type of revisionist history (Said's) that arises when one's allegiance is with their own prejudicial beliefs and causes rather then objective analysis.

kat

Jul9-03, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Zero
What ever happened to David ben Gurion?

Zero-He retired early 70's and died a few years after

drag

Jul10-03, 12:04 AM

Greetings !
Originally posted by jcsd
Kat- it is clear from earlier writings of zionist leaders such as Thomas Herzl that the plans to expel the Arabs existed well before 1929 and it was infact this fear of being dispossesed that motivated the violence against zionist settlers as before zionism you have to go back to the crusader period for attacks on Jews in Palestine.
Like she answered - a lie. The hatred of the arabs towards the
Jews never existed in any siginificant measure until the early
20th century uprise of arab nationalism, then their siding
with Nazi Germany and later the Muslim extremism.
Originally posted by jcsd
drag- If they take such great care (a claim that is not borne out by the reports of human rights groups), how come there is no significant difference between the ratio of Israeli civilians/Israelisecurity forces killed(0.63) and Palestinian non-combatants/Palestinian miltants(~0.55), except that the Palestinian death toll is three times higher.
First of all 0.63 is NOT 0.55. Second, like I said these statistics
are not accurate. Third, read this (not a "news" site but
a site that describes the truth about the situation, not the
"truth" of the arabs whose middle-eastern upbringing teaches them
that lies are the best way to gain, but the reality in the field):
http://www.wjc.org.il/publications/policy_dispatches/pub_dis63.html
Originally posted by jcsd
You attack HRW without knowing anything about it, it routinely reports on corruption and torture in the PA and releases reports on the wrongdoings of Palestinian terrorists. Israel is only one concern out of many for HRW, whose head is incidently Jewish.

I don't know whom else it crtisizes and how much, I don't
know whether indeed its head is Jewish - which by the way
says nothing because normal people are not used to manipulate
suhc "power" in their own favor. I DO know that its claims are
often exhagerated and ussualy ignore completely the situation
because an 18 year old "peaceful demonstrant" is not equal to
a 5 year old child blown up in a bus.
Originally posted by jcsd
I see a pattern here you routinely make an assertation, it's proved false yo make another then again are forced to retreat from your postion, would it not be a good idea to become more knowledgable on the subject before blindly defending everything that the Israeli government does?
That's funny, I see no such pattern. The only pattern I see
so far is that you bring up random pieces of info to
justify your biased pro-arab, pro-Muslim and racist views
and then when I expose the lie or delibarate misinterpretation
or misrepresentation that you make you "forget" about it
and jump to new pieces of info with the same intent.

Zero, perhaps your extensive military experience can suggest
better ways of dealing with Palestinian terrorism ? I'd love
to hear them for once, instead of your critism of whatever
concerns Israel and admiration of all Palestinian.

Live long and prosper.

russ_watters

Jul10-03, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by Zero
So Palestinian children killed in missle attacks aren't innocent? Certainly. They are as innocent as the Israeli children killed by the suicide bombers who's leaders are then killed in the missile attacks. If the suicide bombers go away, the need to attack their leaders and the associated collateral damage does too.
Zero, perhaps your extensive military experience can suggest
better ways of dealing with Palestinian terrorism ? I'd love
to hear them for once, instead of your critism of whatever
concerns Israel and admiration of all Palestinian.Drag, we already had that discussion (I'm pretty sure you participated).
We discussed whether its better (for everyone) to fire some missiles from a helicopter or send in a platoon of infantry (or even two cops) after a terrorist leader. Though he didn't exactly concede (he never does) his reaction seemed to indicate that he agreed that it IS better for everyone if gunships instead of infantry are used. According to YOUR understanding of the statistics ?
The IDF takes the greatest care of avoiding civilian casualties
in such a complex situation, more than any other military force in
the world. It is clear that you understand very little
about military conflicts, aspecialy such a complex one
as this dealing with fanatic suicide terrorists who attack
with total disregard for their own or any other lives. Not to mention, drag, the uncomfortable little fact that while Israel may kill some civilians BY ACCIDENT, virtually every single civilian killed by the Arabs in this conflict was intentional.
They are. As for all those "international" organizations
I already expressed my opinion about the UN.
I remember those poor Belgians also wanted to put
Bush and others on trial until it was quite clearly suggested
to them that their whole pathetic deal with the "intrenational
court" will be dealt with appropriately and they "reconsidered".
Seriously, someone should put a lid on these pathetic weed smokers' "intrenational" parties who think they're the most
beautifull moral crystal clear peace flowers around. Who the
hell are they to tell who and what is right or wrong unless
they've been there, seen it and spilled their blood there.
Pathetic... Western Europe has stopped being the center
power of the world long ago, but some of the countries there still think that they, from the perspective of almost 0 experience in
real conflicts in the past half a century and their primary
EU problems being environmental issues, can dictate the rest
of the world how it should live. Where were they 60 years ago
with all that moral crap ? Well damn, drag, don't sugar coat it, tell us how you really feel! [:D] (I agree)The development of Israel was indicative of a race, persecuted throughout the arab kingdom, throughout the area called Palestine, throughout europe. SO yes Israel was formed out of racism, as the one place possibly on earth that they might escape to and live together safely after having been proven that it was not safe for them to depend on others to ensure their safety. That is the legacy of the beginning of Israel. Well put, kat. To expand, Israel was founded not ON racism, but as an escape from racism by a specific race. But the escape from racism (among other things) is not limited to Jews. Any Arab can move to Israel to escape the many problems in Arab countries.

I'm thinking maybe this is part of the reason we feel such a kinship with Israel - the US was founded largely by people who were escaping some sort of persecution in Europe. And as a result, we built a Bill of Rights into our Constitution.

B'tselem: Israeli non-enforcement of the law with regards to settlers:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/isr...RAEL0901-13.htm Jcsd, that article is about education rights. It has nothing to do with the law on serving in the military and non-enforcement with regard to the settlers. Please try to make your lies a little less transparent.

Zero

Jul10-03, 02:04 AM

Two wrongs make a right, I suppose...so long as it is Israel who commits the second wrong.

Zero

Jul11-03, 01:45 PM

To be more specific, when a suicide bomber kills 7, it is horrible(we all agree on that). When Israeli troops retaliate by killing 6 suspected terrorists, and their wives and children, we also blame taht on the terrorists, huh? Just once, I would like to see someone decry the horrible fact that Israeli troops are slaughering children. It wouldn't make you anti-semitic, you know?

Actually, that seems to be teh entire argument, from my perspective. "The Arabs did it first, so it doesn't matter what Israel does in return." Oh, and let's never distinguish between Palestinians terrorists and civilians. The Israeli troops sure don't.

kat

Jul11-03, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Zero
To be more specific, when a suicide bomber kills 7, it is horrible(we all agree on that). When Israeli troops retaliate by killing 6 suspected terrorists, and their wives and children, we also blame taht on the terrorists, huh? Just once, I would like to see someone decry the horrible fact that Israeli troops are slaughering children. It wouldn't make you anti-semitic, you know?

Actually, that seems to be teh entire argument, from my perspective. "The Arabs did it first, so it doesn't matter what Israel does in return." Oh, and let's never distinguish between Palestinians terrorists and civilians. The Israeli troops sure don't.

Let me be as specific as I can be without being rude as to what I feel when I read your comments, with the understanding that I am being blunt for clarity and not for condemnation as we all come from our own views of life and our own sympathies and most often we all have some bit of right and some bit of wrong within them no matter what they are or where they arise from.
What I hear you say is Israeli slaughter needlessly, that they purposely go out and hunt down children and women and slaughter them wilingly and needlessly because they are such hateful vile people, this is what I read from you. Now whether that is your intention I do not know, but this IS what I read.
It seems to me that you want to lay all of the blame on the Israeli's, you believe they have no right to be there and none of this would exist if they did not AND so because of this they should either pack up and leave, open the doors to all the arabs waiting to enter or if not this then because it is their own guilt that has brought them to the situation they should simply walk around with big fat targets on their t-shirts and not DO anything in defense. If this were not the case then SURELY when I have outlined the problems with your statements on how they should handle this, and I continuesly suggest to you that there REALLY is no better way, and IN FACT there are less civilians killed this way then when using OTHER OPTIONS you tacticly ignore that fact AND never, ever offer any solutions, NEVER.
SO, to me when someone continues to blame yet never offers better VIABLE solutions then they quite simply are part of the problem.

ALso, let me explain to you why I don't spend my time and energy focusing on blaming the Israeli's with the same fervor as you (although REALLY at this point I think blaming is useless and we really MUST all shift gears and start pushing for VIABLE solutions) If I must blame SOMEONE when surely there is SO MUCH blame to spread around it should be ridiculously silly if it wasn't so HORRIBLE HORRIBLY TRAGIC. BUT as for SPECIFIC blame, I would surely be MANY in line before Israel.

The blame for Christians:
For two thousand years the Christian world acted COLLECTIVELY to deprive the Jews in the diaspora of a means of livelihood. They expelled them out of country after country, robbing their possessions and their homes. Finally they began to exterminate the Jews of Europe, first by blood libels, then by pogroms and finally by gas chamber genocide. The remnant of the Jews demanded to return to their homeland for security. That is a perfectly understandable reaction to that history. The Christian world is at fault for that much. Let the Christian world pay back to the Jew all they stole over the centuries with reasonable interest. Let the Christian world decide what to do with the wave of Arab refugees that triggered when the wave of Jewish refugees that they created hit the shores of Palestine. The Christian world is at fault for starting the refugee wave. Let them solve the problem. Don’t ask the Jews to solve the problem that was fomented by Christian anti-Semitism. The Jews are the victim of those Christian actions just as much as the Palestinians are.

The Blame for the Arabs:
When the whole Arab world was being divided into 20+ nation-states, it rejected the right of the Jews to self determination in a nation-state of their own on less than ½ of 1% of the land. When it rejected that minimal partition and opted instead for war because "All of Arab land must be only and always Arab" they were at fault. When they decided on war instead of a peaceful political compromise, they took on the full responsibility for the outcome. The refugee problem is theirs to solve. It is not the Jews’s problem to solve. The Jews did not ask for that war. The Arab world did.

When the Arab world then united and for 50 years insisted that the refugees must remain in those camps, and for 50 years said no peace, no negotiation, no Jewish State … then they became not only at fault, but criminally at fault, and deserve not only to pay compensatory damages their policies caused Israel and the Palestinians, but punitive damages as well.

The Blame for the Muslims:
For centuries the Islamic world treated Jews in dozens of places like second class serfs. They collected special taxes from them and prevented many from earning a livelihood in many professions. They prevented them from owning land in many places. By restricting the rights of Jews to compete on an equal basis, the Islamic world helped set the stage for the Jews to seek salvation in a state of their own. The Islamic world is at fault for both the damage they directly did to the Jews, and the indirect damage they caused by forcing the Jews to seek a state of their own if they were to have any chance at getting equal justice in the Muslim world.

Zero, when I think in terms of blame, I see a lot that needs to be made up to the Jews before the Jews can be asked by any Christian or Muslim to take responsibility for what happened to the Palestinians. When I think of Jews deciding what they should do on the basis of fault, I think the Jews had every reason in the world to expel the Palestinians who, to this day, call Husseini a hero, and supported bombs landing on Tel Aviv, and support Hamas that calls for killing EVERY Jew hiding behind EVERY rock.

Finally, the blame for the Palestinians:
When starting in 1888 a trickle of Jews began to leave Europe they were unarmed refugees. They moved to Palestine and paid for land to create small Jewish villages where they might live unmolested. These villages were routinely and repeatedly attacked from nearby Arab villages and Jews were murdered. Not only the attackers themselves are at fault. At fault are also those Arabs who spread the rumors the fomented these attacks and the Arabs who sheltered the attackers in their villages so they could be free to attack again. Before Israelis are asked to collectively make ANY recompense to Palestinians, the Palestinians must collectively take responsibility for those attacks and pay recompense for the damage they did.

Haj Amin El Husseini fomented one riot against the Jews after another, usually by spreading anti-Jewish libel in the Muslim/Arab communities. He fomented the anti-Jewish riots in Palestine in 1929 (and was instrumental in fomenting the anti-Jewish farhad in Iraq in 1941). The Palestinians cheered him on and collectively joined in those riots, which among other things resulted in the expulsion of the ENTIRE Jewish community from Hebron. If Palestinians were subsequently expelled from their homes, they should consider themselves paying no more than the natural consequences of their actions against the Jews, in those riots.

And don't give me that crap that Husseini would have been a good boy and everything wonderful if the Jews had not come. Sure, if the Jews remained in Europe and just died there, he would not have had to kill them in Palestine. That reasoning makes me want to puke.

When Hitler decided to get rich and get rid of the Jews at the same time by allowing the Jews of Europe to be ransomed one by one, the Jews (especially the Zionists) started collecting funds to try to save as many lives as they could. Husseini traveled to Berlin to convince Hitler to stop letting any Jews out of Europe and to exterminate them instead. He then personally aided in the extermination of the Jews of Yugoslavia. All those friggin racists who supported Husseini then and who do so today are at fault. They bear collective responsibility for the result; that hundreds of thousands of Jews are dead, and many of the remainder cannot bear to even think of living near Christians or Muslims. So if the Palestinian Christians and Moslems had to be expelled to alleviate a situation they helped foment … well maybe that is the balance of justice.

When I think in terms of bringing PEACE to a horrible situation I DON"T THINK OF ANY OF THIS BLAME, I think of ridding the Palestinian people of the FANATICS and those ARABS who are in power that entrap them, that also kill them and make them suffer evern greater then the Israeli's, I think of how UNTIL they rise up against these groups THEY WILL KNOW NO PEACE, the Israeli's ARE not really the BIGGEST problem the Palestinians face..they are however a very good diversion. Some day if there is to be ANY peace in the middle east the fanatics MUST be dealt with by the Palestinians themselves and UNTIL the entire focus is on this there will be NO peace that will NOT BE undermined.

russ_watters

Jul12-03, 04:29 PM

Since I realize the previous post will probably be deleted, I' do this in a separate post.

Zero, I can't understand why you don't see the obvious difference between a child killed ON PURPOSE and one killed BY ACCIDENT. And thats at best - typically terrorist PURPOSELY hide among civilians so according to the Geneva Convention, civilian deaths are the fault of the terrorists. The use of human shields is a Geneva Convention violation.

Further, you have conveniently forgotten our discussion on the best way to go after suspected terrorists. You seemed to acknowlege that sending a squad of infantry into a town to arrest a terrorist would end up causing more deaths on both sides than a gunship attack.

And you emphasized the word "suspected". "Suspected terrorists." The implication being that they need to be arrested and tried before they can be executed. Zero, terrorists and their sympathizers LOVE to try to get the best of both worlds - both criminal and military rights. In reality, terrorists get NEITHER the rights of criminals nor the rights of legal enemy combatants.

Zero

Jul12-03, 07:15 PM

Kat, three quick things that I have told you repeatedly, which you continuously ignore.
1) I never said that Israeli troops target women and children. I said that they don't seem to show any caution to avoid killing them. You know, simple things like blowing up a car containing a suspected terrorist, and his wife and child. You make that leap for some reason...and I usually guess that the reason is so that you can claim that I am anti-semitic.

2)Do you think that I cannot have the opinion that the situation is horrible unless I have a perfect solution to offer? In that case, no one can say they are anti-ANYTHING without having a solution...and if we all had solutions there would be no problems in the world, would there?

3) I don't understand your attitude that every other group must be perfect before Israel accepts the first bit of blame. The terrorist attacks are wrong, so the retaliation is ALWAYS 100% RIGHT, so long as it isn't as bad as a terrorist attack?

And, Russ, about your comment about suspected terrorists and their rights? Shouldn't someone have to prove that a person is a terrorist before they kill them and their wife and child?

russ_watters

Jul14-03, 02:44 PM

*edit*

kat

Jul19-03, 08:32 PM

I don't quite understand what was wrong with Rw's post, I read it quickly just after it was posted and although I don't remember exactly what it said..it didn't seem problematic...
What was the issue?

anyhow, now that I have some breathing time I'll take a sec and respond to your 3 points.

Originally posted by Zero
Kat, three quick things that I have told you repeatedly, which you continuously ignore. I don't think I ignore anything you've "told" repeatedly, I think that a)you are a bit blind to your own prejudices b)I think you're suffering from a severe case of moral equivelancy. C) You have a nasty habit of ignoring the facts when they don't jive with your world view.

Originally posted by Zero

1) I never said that Israeli troops target women and children. I said that they don't seem to show any caution to avoid killing them. You know, simple things like blowing up a car containing a suspected terrorist, and his wife and child. You make that leap for some reason...and I usually guess that the reason is so that you can claim that I am anti-semitic.
I think it was perhaps the word "slaughter" and your continued voluntary and pointed ignorance of the situation in the disputed territories. I've pointed out on several occasions that a) Israel has a right to protect itself b) targeting with "missiles" is far less bloody then other methods available and if you do not agree then give a viable alternative.
Also, the reason is not to claim that you're anti-semitic, the reason is because you fail to acknowledge the right to self protection and offer a viable alternative. I claim your anti-semitic because of your statements supporting genocide and the absolute anhilation of Israel.

Originally posted by Zero
2)Do you think that I cannot have the opinion that the situation is horrible unless I have a perfect solution to offer? In that case, no one can say they are anti-ANYTHING without having a solution...and if we all had solutions there would be no problems in the world, would there? I think you can have an opinion that the situation is horrible, certainly I have made the same statement MYSELF, repeatedly. HOWEVER, you don't just have an opinion that the situation is horrible, you have an opinion that the situation is horrible AND that the guilt lies on the head of the Israeli's. You then make statements declaring that perhaps it's because of the jews early biblical "sins" and advocate the complete anhilation of the jewish state by black topping it over. You lay the blame upon the victim, and you continue to ignore that they are indeed also victims who have the right to self protection.
Originally posted by Zero

3) I don't understand your attitude that every other group must be perfect before Israel accepts the first bit of blame. The terrorist attacks are wrong, so the retaliation is ALWAYS 100% RIGHT, so long as it isn't as bad as a terrorist attack?
I don't understand how you twist my statements. Maybe you need to re-read my post, where have I called for perfection? Where do I claim 100% anything? I simply point out your errors and seldom have time to actually have an intelligent discourse on real viable solutions because our conversations our continuesly weighted down with inflamnatory statements that neglect the on ground realities. Your unrealistic suggestion of joint palestinian/israeli policing is a perfect example of this.

Originally posted by Zero

And, Russ, about your comment about suspected terrorists and their rights? Shouldn't someone have to prove that a person is a terrorist before they kill them and their wife and child?
Zero, you don't have to prove someone is guilty when they publicly admit, no wait,..proudly, proclaim guilt and willingly take responsibility for the purposeful murder of civilians.

As for killing the wife and child...YES, it's horrible. YES, it should be avoided, YES, it should be condemned
BUT when the militant
PROCLAIMS war
plans, creates, supports, recruits, finances, attacks and
TARGETS NOT military targets
but
PURPOSELY targets innocent civilians
and
AGAINST ALL GENEVA CONVENTIONS
PURPOSELY and continiously surrounds theirselves with civilians
for the SOLE purpose of dragging the Israeli military into a situation where this sort of issue will arise..
is where a huge amount of guilt MUST LIE.....
because if it DOES NOT ...
VOCALLY lie there, with the militant who creates this as a strategy
then you are guilty of complicity
because you encourage the militant to use that tactic
because IT BECOMES EFFECTIVE.
Do you understand this? or is it completely foreign to you?