Is Israel Willing to Give Up Arab Neighborhoods in Jerusalem for Peace?

[Hurkyl]

Do your basic reading comprehension skills you mentioned include an understanding of the term 'context'? :tongue2:

Yes. And if you recall, you quoted Yonoz to provide context for your post. I'd be willing to accept that you simply made a big mistake with your choice of quote, initial choice of words, and the juxtaposition of Yonoz's last sentence with your first sentence... but you haven't issued a correction.

I suggest you read the preceding posts to gain understanding, or is this purely an exercise in obfuscation to avoid answering my point re the dual standards adopted by the West in relation to non-compliance with UN resolutions?

If I wanted to avoid answering something, I would simply not answer it.

 

[Hurkyl]

The action of your government says otherwise. Nevertheless, you had no right to the land in the first place and your government continue to deploy its genocidal tendencies to innocent Arabs.

Are you familiar with the phrase

Your right to swing your first ends where my nose begins​

?

 

[Yonoz]

ah ha... so Israel is the stronger side here eh? see... Israel have an "image" problem as far as palestinians attracting sympathisers is concerned. and frankly, if it is so much stronger...it needs to do nothing, absolutely nothing, and it will still be seen as the aggressor in the eyes of the arab world. And it didn't score many positive points either last year in the conflict with Hezbollah in Lebenon when it blew up so many Lebenon civilian facilities (sure, it has its reasons... BUT same applies to those kasam rockets!)

So far I have agreed with much of what you said, but this is where our opinions differ. Qassam rockets are targeted (mostly) at civilians; Israeli weapons are not. Qassam rockets are fired with no intent other than to harm Israelis; the Israeli weapons fired at Lebanese targets were fired with the intention of of achieving the stated goals of that campaign, which did not include harming Lebanese. Palestinians would be better off if the Qassams were to stop; Israelis would suffer more attacks if we would not defend ourselves.

back to the point on "aggressor", there is this concept called "fear"... when one is strong one automatically imposes that fear on others... one doesn't need to fire its missiles, the mere presence of missiles on the launching pad ready to fire is enough of an deterrent. It causes fear and stress. And once one has that atmosphere set up, suddenly one's words become more effective, ppl will suddenly pay attention, ppl will agree with one more often just to avoid conflict.. and the result will be far-reaching. that's why at the UN the so-called former nuclear giants (the big 5) has so much say in the UN security council (besides the fact that they are somewhat economically stronger too... ie. more $$$).

I wouldn't go there - it is the loss of Israel's deterrence that is the source of much of its problems. Israel could not, and doesn't want, to deal with Palestinians like the Jordanians did in Black September or the Lebanese Forces in Sabra and Shatila, or deal with Islamists like the Syrians did in Hama.

and now you say that all the palestinians need to do to gain Israeli trust is stop shooting (presummably means hanging over all their rocket shells otherwise Israel can't trust them) and they wait for Israel to return the favor? :rofl:

Now you're downright insulting. The residents of Sderot aren't laughing.

this certainly can't happen under the current atmosphere of "fear". With Israel controlling their water and power, Israel and their apache gunships, AND Palestinian's suicide bombers + kasam rockets and a few sabotage at the holy land.
The fact that Israel is too strong by comparsion actually makes matter worse. But since there is no way (it seems) for Israel to give that up ("and why should we do that anyway?", you would say, "we need protect ourselves"), peace will be very difficult.

In what country do you live, mjsd? Was your home ever under fire? Neither you nor I nor the Israeli leadership can tell Israeli civilians suffering constant rocket fire their safety is to be guaranteed by vague promises from serial promise-breakers who swear by the destruction of Israel.

All I am saying is that it is clear that you (both sides) must give up something to trade it for peace (IF you (both sides) want peace for your future generations).

Talk is cheap.

 

[Art]

Yes. And if you recall, you quoted Yonoz to provide context for your post. I'd be willing to accept that you simply made a big mistake with your choice of quote, initial choice of words, and the juxtaposition of Yonoz's last sentence with your first sentence... but you haven't issued a correction.

I don't see the need for a correction, I'm sure anybody with something greater than basic reading comprehension skills understood me perfectly and I address my posts to them.

If I wanted to avoid answering something, I would simply not answer it.

As exemplified by the case in point for example.

 

[Art]

Some Palestinians are acting unreasonably, by my standards - particularly Hamas, which calls for the destruction of Israel.
The UN does not "represent the world". The General Assembly, to whose resolutions you are mostly referring, is nothing more than an arena for international politics. Its resolutions are recommendations and carry no legal status, thus they cannot lend or deny any "legal basis".
As for the remaining UNSC resolutions, Israel has definitely not ignored them, as it is still today striving for "establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" as per resolution 242. Unfortunately, it is impossible to achieve a "just and lasting peace" unilaterally: the Khartoum Resolution called for "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it".

No the resolutions I am referring to are from the UNSC and according to the International Court of Justice are all legally binding.

I didn't include the 500 or so additional resolutions against Israel passed by the general assembly.

Regarding resolution 242 in case you are unaware Israel is still occupying the Arab lands this resolution told them to give back and in fact is still building settlements on the land all of which are illegal under international law.

If Israel really wants peace perhaps it should consider giving back the land and properties it stole, stop the detention without trial of thousands of Palestinians (many of which are children), stop massacring Arab civilians, stop it's apartheid policies and stop bombing it's neighbours.

 

[Yonoz]

No the resolutions I am referring to are from the UNSC and according to the International Court of Justice are all legally binding.

Please provide a list of 80 UNSC resolutions Israel is ignoring.

Regarding resolution 242 in case you are unaware Israel is still occupying the Arab lands this resolution told them to give back and in fact is still building settlements on the land all of which are illegal under international law.

The resolution didn't "tell" Israel to give any land back - mainly because there is no one to give it back to - the previous occupiers of the land were, well - occupiers. The resolution called for the "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" as part of "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East". Surely you agree "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" would include the formation of a Palestinian state in these territories, and not simply their return to other occupiers who have violently oppressed their Palestinian inhabitants and manipulated them in a proxy war for their own national interests. In any case these occupiers have already reached peace agreements with Israel as part of an attempt to arrive at "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East", and have forfeited (refused) to take these territories. Israel has tried handing the territories over to the PLO as part of the failed Oslo Accords, and it has unilaterally disengaged from the Gaza Strip.
Israel has taken almost every route towards "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" - it has certainly not ignored and it still in the process of complying with UNSC 242.

EDIT: Let us recap Israel's compliance with UNSC 242, paragraph 1:
"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict":
Sinai Peninsula - full withdrawal.
Gaza Strip - full withdrawal, with the exception of short operations in proximity to the border against rocket fire.
West Bank - partial withdrawal.
Golan Heights - no withdrawal, ongoing state of war with neighboring Syria.
"Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force":
Egypt - Peace Treaty.
Jordan - Peace Treaty.
Lebanon - Armistice.
Syria - State of war.

 

[Art]

Please provide a list of 80 UNSC resolutions Israel is ignoring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel
Note Israel are currently breaching the latest UN resolution 1701 which THEY asked for.

The resolution didn't "tell" Israel to give any land back - mainly because there is no one to give it back to - the previous occupiers of the land were, well - occupiers. The resolution called for the "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" as part of "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East". Surely you agree "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" would include the formation of a Palestinian state in these territories, and not simply their return to other occupiers who have violently oppressed their Palestinian inhabitants and manipulated them in a proxy war for their own national interests. In any case these occupiers have already reached peace agreements with Israel as part of an attempt to arrive at "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East", and have forfeited (refused) to take these territories. Israel has tried handing the territories over to the PLO as part of the failed Oslo Accords, and it has unilaterally disengaged from the Gaza Strip.
Israel has taken almost every route towards "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" - it has certainly not ignored and it still in the process of complying with UNSC 242.

Look again it demands

"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict"

It must be difficult for you to keep defending the indefensible which no doubt led to your gross distortion of the truth re Israel's conformance to UNSC 242. Israel offered the PLO only a patchwork quilt of the worst pieces of land whilst holding onto nearly all of their illegal settlements. The patches of land proffered weren't even contiguous, whilst the illegal settlements of course were, making the formation of a viable Palestinian state impossible but of course that was the idea. Meanwhile the dispossessed Palestinians many of whom were and to this day continue to be forcibally evicted from their homes are stateless and living in dire conditions in refugee camps. Is it really any wonder these people want to hit back at their oppressors?? Wasn't it Sharon who said if he was a Palestinian he would be a 'terrorist' and fight against Israel?

 

[Yonoz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel
Note Israel are currently breaching the latest UN resolution 1701 which THEY asked for.

*buzzer* Wrong answer!
You were asked to provide a list of 80 UN Security Council resolutions Israel is ignoring.
You provided a list of UN resolutions concerning Israel.
Should I join that "reading comprehension" argument?

It must be difficult for you to keep defending the indefensible which no doubt led to your gross distortion of the truth re Israel's conformance to UNSC 242. Israel offered the PLO only a patchwork quilt of the worst pieces of land whilst holding onto nearly all of their illegal settlements. The patches of land proffered weren't even contiguous making the formation of a viable Palestinian state impossible but of course that was the idea.

Regardless of your opinion of what is "defensible", the original point stands.

 

[Art]

*buzzer* Wrong answer!
You were asked to provide a list of 80 UN Security Council resolutions Israel is ignoring.
You provided a list of UN resolutions concerning Israel.
Should I join that "reading comprehension" argument?

It ignored them all. Many resolutions condemned Israeli activities. Israel never apologised and more often than not repeated the same censored behaviour which to any reasonable interpretation equates to ignoring the resolution.

Perhaps you could inform me which security council resolutions Israel came into full compliance with.

 

[Yonoz]

It ignored them all.

*Buzzer* Wrong again!
Numbers 1 through 19 all deal with the situation before and during the War of Independence, Israel or its predecessor organizations certainly did not ignore these, were noted as cooperating with the commission and ultimately the Jewish leadership accepted the commission's proposed partition plan - which the Arab states, who represented what later became known as the Palestinian people, rejected it.
Number 18:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 73, adopted on August 21, 1949, noted with satisfaction the Armistice Agreements between the parties involved in the 1948 Conflict in Palestine then expressed the hope that a final settlement of all questions outstanding between the parties might be achieved soon. The Resolution went on to relieve the Action Mediator in Palestine, as his duties had been fulfilled, and requested the Secretary-General arrange for the continued service of the personnel of the present Truce Supervision Organization as may be required in observing and maintaining the cease-fires and Armistices. The Resolution also requested that the Chief of Staff of the TSO report to the Council on the observance of the cease-fire.

Number 22:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 95, adopted on September 1, 1951, after recalling recent promises and statements from both sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict saying they would work for peace the Council chastised Egypt for refusing ships bound for Israeli ports to move through the Suez Canal and called upon the Egyptian Government to immediately cease all interference with any shipping save that which is essential to the safety of shipping in the Canal itself.

Number 23 is also irrelevant.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 108, adopted on September 8, 1955, after another report by the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine the Council noted the acceptance by both parties of the appeal of the Chief of Staff for an unconditional cease-fire.

So much for Israel "ignoring" UNSC resolutions.
That leaves less than 80, so I'm going to stop here.

Many resolutions condemned Israeli activities. Israel never apologised and more often than not repeated the same censored behaviour which to any reasonable interpretation equates to ignoring the resolution.

Why does the UNSC find it necessary to call on Israel not to celebrate its independence in its own capital, and then to condemn it? You can take another 2 off that list...

 

[Art]

Perhaps reading comprehension is an issue for you. I specifically stated Israel does not conform to resolutions it does not like. Try reading this piece again from the link I supplied.

Of the 131 resolutions passed, 43 could be considered neutral while the remaining 88 either criticized and opposed the actions of Israel or judged against its interests.

Obviously Israel would be expected to conform to resolutions neutral or favourable to it (although sometimes it doesn't even do that; for an example see my earlier ref to UNSC1701).

Now do you think it is right that Israel be allowed to flaunt UN resolutions whilst Iraq got bombed back into the stone age and do you see how this might lead to alienation within the Arab world and so do you not agree that perhaps the Palestinian's demand for Israel to abide by UNSC resolutions and get the '#&£ off their land is a perfectly reasonable stance?

 

[Moridin]

Are you familiar with the phrase

Your right to swing your first ends where my nose begins​

?

Surely you must understand what lies behind the origin of the 'state' of Israel, why it is so desperately trying to hold on to something that is not theirs to begin with and why they treat the Palestinians the way they do? I'm sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[Yonoz]

I specifically stated Israel does not conform to resolutions it does not like. Try reading this piece again from the link I supplied.

You've yet to present 80 UNSC resolutions which Israel has ignored.

Now do you think it is right that Israel be allowed to flaunt UN resolutions whilst Iraq got bombed back into the stone age and do you see how this might lead to alienation within the Arab world and so do you not agree that perhaps the Palestinian's demand for Israel to abide by UNSC resolutions and get the '#&£ off their land is a perfectly reasonable stance?

I don't think it's right for any country to be "bombed back into the stone age", though I'm not quite sure what that means, but then again you seem to be over-&$#@ing-simplfying everything.

 

[mjsd]

I didn't intend to return and continue this endless conversation. However, several of my key points were somehow misinterpreted or viewed in the wrong angle. I have no wish to offend anyone or any party, all I am hoping is trying to go through the situation using the point of view of both sides and hopefully come to some kind of agreement on at least some of the issues. But obviously I have failed, and perhaps in the meantime I have become a so-called "Israel haters" in the eyes of many on this board. Well, perhaps, those who think otherwise should also let me know (if you guys who kind of agree with me actually exist). let me say it again, I have been trying to carefully (perhaps not carefully enough) to engage this matter in a neutral perspective. And by the way, the fact that I don't receive rockets day in day out put me in a better position to judge in the neutral direction, for my views are not biased in the sense that I don't have to taken into account my own survival...(sure by the same token, it also makes my point weak because I don't know exactly how tough life is over-there... see? it is hard enough trying to be neutral AND trying to make a point or two for I am constantly kicking myself, correcting myself... this is also what it meant by understanding each other and being tolerant... one must understand that one is never always right...) having said that I sympathise your current situation... AND that was the reason why I care to discuss about such matters, AND why I felt that peace maybe important for your region.

Now you're downright insulting. The residents of Sderot aren't laughing.

it is very difficult to set the tone right in writing a post... "laughing" wasn't laughing. the fact is that if you can't trust them, they can't trust you either. when there is no trust you can't do anything no matter how many UN resolutions do you have in place.

only time will heal the differences.

In what country do you live, mjsd? Was your home ever under fire? Neither you nor I nor the Israeli leadership can tell Israeli civilians suffering constant rocket fire their safety is to be guaranteed by vague promises from serial promise-breakers who swear by the destruction of Israel.

Talk is cheap.

Talk is cheap? sure... so both sides want to be tough eh? I know there is this issue with "politics" and that not everyone share my vision for peace, but at the end of the day there is only one question for you (both sides) to consider: do u actually want to continue live like this? Because you are living in that region and you have this problem at hand, it makes it all the more imperative for you to education your children about not being so tough (again you means both sides), so extreme. there are a lot of grey areas in life, it is not just either you or me; one has to accept the fact that sometimes you have to lose some and on another occasion someone else will.

If you can't accept giving away any concessions (which is where I feel that our views are going in different directions based on our very own values and perspective in life), then you can't coexist with the other in harmony. If your (both sides) politics/public opinions dictate that this is simply unachievable... so be it.

I have nothing more to add except it is your (both sides') choice.

 

[Hurkyl]

I don't see the need for a correction,

Okay then. We could have saved all of this hassle if, when I first asked, you said

Yes Hurkyl, I do think it's reasonable for the Palestinians to prefer the destruction of Israel over stability.​

I don't know why you are so reluctant to answer a simple question asking you to clarify your position -- was it really preferable to go through all this garbage first?

 

[Yonoz]

the fact is that if you can't trust them, they can't trust you either.

How is that a fact?

Talk is cheap? sure... so both sides want to be tough eh? I know there is this issue with "politics" and that not everyone share my vision for peace, but at the end of the day there is only one question for you (both sides) to consider: do u actually want to continue live like this? Because you are living in that region and you have this problem at hand, it makes it all the more imperative for you to education your children about not being so tough (again you means both sides), so extreme. there are a lot of grey areas in life, it is not just either you or me; one has to accept the fact that sometimes you have to lose some and on another occasion someone else will.

I don't see how "talk is cheap" can be interpreted as "want(ing) to be tough".
Don't you feel patronizing in the slightest? What credentials qualify you to judge us like this? What do you know about the way we educate our children? Do you think we're extreme in our expectations that our presence here will be recognized, or that our civilians will no longer be targeted?

If you can't accept giving away any concessions (which is where I feel that our views are going in different directions based on our very own values and perspective in life), then you can't coexist with the other in harmony. If your (both sides) politics/public opinions dictate that this is simply unachievable... so be it.

Israel has released 87 Palestinian militants in the last 2 days and 255 in July.

I have nothing more to add except it is your (both sides') choice.

We have already made http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/909079.html.

 

[mjsd]

I don't see how "talk is cheap" can be interpreted as "want(ing) to be tough".
Don't you feel patronizing in the slightest?

Dictionary: patronize, verb DISAPPROVING; to speak to or behave towards someone as if they are stupid or unimportant:

I patronize you or you patronize me? no doubt, you have more knowledge about Israel than I do, so that makes me the stupid one then eh? let's not argue on this.

What credentials qualify you to judge us like this?

No one in this world is qualified to judge you except yourself and your descendants.
I am just making an opinion or two. If you don't like it, so be it. No one forces you to like everything other says. I don't think I have been delibrately stepping on others' tails here. At least it wasn't my intention for I don't wish anyone stepping on my tail either! (perhaps, poor english skills and limited vocabulary bank may have led to misuse of certain adjectives here and there...which may be subsequently misinterpreted)

What do you know about the way we educate our children?

I said what I said with the assumption that you will teach your children your own beliefs, values and perhaps religion. Expectations, values and ideals that may be viewed as extreme (or action that may be viewed as aggressive) by your Palestinian counterparts. Same applies to them, I assume: the Palestinians will teach their children their ideals, their revengeful ways...which will be no doubt (correct me if I am wrong) viewed by you as extreme, unreasonable and aggressive. Whether I view either of your values as extreme or not is unimportant (that's why you shouldn't point the finger at me), it is how you see each other that is essential. And when I said what I said I had this in mind. Btw, I don't quite agree with the belief that "if you are not with us, you are against us..." either (just making a statement about myself ok? not accusing anyone here)

Do you think we're extreme in our expectations that our presence here will be recognized, or that our civilians will no longer be targeted?

again, my view is not important for the resolution of this matter. it is what the Palestinians think of you on this matter that is essential and vice-versa. "extreme or not" will dictate by the perspective of the other party (not the onlooker).

it is like: suppose I hate the dog next door (constantly barking and intimidate passers-by). But that's my perspective. For the guy next door, in his perspective, his dog is doing a great job in keeping his house secure and doing what dog does best. In his opinion, his dog is the best! For a relative living at my place who can tolerate some barkings will find that (in his/her perspective) there is absolutely nothing wrong/bad with the dog. And he/she may disagree with my complain that the guy next door is wrong for not making an effort in controlling his dog. He/she may see that the guy next door is within his right to have a dog and have it barks at passers-by and I have no rights to any form of "retaliations".

The guy next door on the other hand may think that I am a whinger or someone who makes unreasonable demands as there is nothing wrong to have a dog and for a dog to bark. his friends may think that he is correct and I am wrong while a "pet-hater/bad owner-hater" friend of mine may agree with me totally on this issue.

To resolve this, it doesn't matter what these friends of ours think, it is more important for me (and my relative) and the guy to agree on something and to understand why the other side is upset or annoyed.

The moral here is that there is no absolute right and wrong in this world. right and wrong (extreme or rational) are perspective dependent (and perspectives can also change over time and events which further complicates the matter). For an onlooker who believes that owners have the responsibility to control their dogs, they will side with me, whereas for those who think that it is a natural instinct for dogs to bark, they may think that my continual complains are unreasonable, my action to turn on my music very loud to counteract the barkings as aggressive and my request to the mayor to ban dogs in the neighbourhood as extreme. Frankly, in my perspective, there is nothing unreasonable, aggressive nor extreme at all.

do you see the point? I am sure you do.


If you insist that there is an absolute right and wrong, and that you are pretty much 99% right all the time, then it is probably better for you the bomb the hell out of your opponents and drive them out now (for your safety sake, and the future generations) because if you are/have been absolutely correct, no one shall blame you for seeking justice. However, you better make sure that more than 50% of the onlookers agree with you though or there may be a backlash...?



"We may not change our circumstances but we can change our attitude" -- Anonymous

 

[Yonoz]

Dictionary: patronize, verb DISAPPROVING; to speak to or behave towards someone as if they are stupid or unimportant:

I patronize you or you patronize me? no doubt, you have more knowledge about Israel than I do, so that makes me the stupid one then eh? let's not argue on this.

No one in this world is qualified to judge you except yourself and your descendants.
I am just making an opinion or two. If you don't like it, so be it. No one forces you to like everything other says. I don't think I have been delibrately stepping on others' tails here. At least it wasn't my intention for I don't wish anyone stepping on my tail either! (perhaps, poor english skills and limited vocabulary bank may have led to misuse of certain adjectives here and there...which may be subsequently misinterpreted)

I do not think you're stupid or unimportant, or I would not be conversing with you in the first place.
Forming and openly declaring your opinion qualifies as a type of judgement. If you would like to avoid stepping on tails, it would be wise to stop making assumptions and to make some sort of inquiry before forming an opinion, definitely before declaring your opinion on something as delicate as the way we educate our future generations.
Needless to say everyone has a right to their opinions etc. It is how we arrive at them that matters (IMO).

I said what I said with the assumption that you will teach your children your own beliefs, values and perhaps religion. Expectations, values and ideals that may be viewed as extreme (or action that may be viewed as aggressive) by your Palestinian counterparts. Same applies to them, I assume: the Palestinians will teach their children their ideals, their revengeful ways...which will be no doubt (correct me if I am wrong) viewed by you as extreme, unreasonable and aggressive. Whether I view either of your values as extreme or not is unimportant (that's why you shouldn't point the finger at me), it is how you see each other that is essential. And when I said what I said I had this in mind. Btw, I don't quite agree with the belief that "if you are not with us, you are against us..." either (just making a statement about myself ok? not accusing anyone here)

So many assumptions. Wouldn't you like to know my beliefs, values and ideals before you form an opinion?

it is like: suppose I hate the dog next door (constantly barking and intimidate passers-by). But that's my perspective. For the guy next door, in his perspective, his dog is doing a great job in keeping his house secure and doing what dog does best. In his opinion, his dog is the best! For a relative living at my place who can tolerate some barkings will find that (in his/her perspective) there is absolutely nothing wrong/bad with the dog. And he/she may disagree with my complain that the guy next door is wrong for not making an effort in controlling his dog. He/she may see that the guy next door is within his right to have a dog and have it barks at passers-by and I have no rights to any form of "retaliations".

The guy next door on the other hand may think that I am a whinger or someone who makes unreasonable demands as there is nothing wrong to have a dog and for a dog to bark. his friends may think that he is correct and I am wrong while a "pet-hater/bad owner-hater" friend of mine may agree with me totally on this issue.

To resolve this, it doesn't matter what these friends of ours think, it is more important for me (and my relative) and the guy to agree on something and to understand why the other side is upset or annoyed.

The moral here is that there is no absolute right and wrong in this world. right and wrong (extreme or rational) are perspective dependent (and perspectives can also change over time and events which further complicates the matter). For an onlooker who believes that owners have the responsibility to control their dogs, they will side with me, whereas for those who think that it is a natural instinct for dogs to bark, they may think that my continual complains are unreasonable, my action to turn on my music very loud to counteract the barkings as aggressive and my request to the mayor to ban dogs in the neighbourhood as extreme. Frankly, in my perspective, there is nothing unreasonable, aggressive nor extreme at all.

do you see the point? I am sure you do.

If you insist that there is an absolute right and wrong, and that you are pretty much 99% right all the time, then it is probably better for you the bomb the hell out of your opponents and drive them out now (for your safety sake, and the future generations) because if you are/have been absolutely correct, no one shall blame you for seeking justice. However, you better make sure that more than 50% of the onlookers agree with you though or there may be a backlash...?

"We may not change our circumstances but we can change our attitude" -- Anonymous

That's a really nice story, Jean-Paul, but this isn't about a barking dog. It is about our existence here.

Moral relativism can only be practiced in ivory towers (now it is my turn to make assumptions). How are things in Fortress Europa?

 

[Art]

Okay then. We could have saved all of this hassle if, when I first asked, you said

Yes Hurkyl, I do think it's reasonable for the Palestinians to prefer the destruction of Israel over stability.​

I don't know why you are so reluctant to answer a simple question asking you to clarify your position -- was it really preferable to go through all this garbage first?

If A does not equal B then it must equal C?

Which sums up your one dimensional twisted logic Try to demonstrate a little more maturity in this discussion Hurkyl. I don't have the time or patience needed to continually rebut your thinly veiled ad-hominem attacks so consider this my last response to your garbage. If you want to discuss the subject matter of this thread then fine; if you want to discuss me then start a new thread. Oh I forgot you already did that before..

 

[mjsd]

Yonoz,

I only have a few questions left for ya:

Can you honestly tell me whether you (and/or your Israeli ppl, assuming that you are from Israel or there about; it certainly sounded to me that you were) are teaching (or going to be teaching) your children based on your own beliefs, ideals, expectations, religion etc (no matter what they actually are, the content is not the point here; it is whether you teach them only your version of the "story" <--- don't take this word literally)?

Do you hope that they will see the world and the situation around you in the same way as you (or your Israeli ppl) do (ie. how you see right and wrong)?

And finally, do you honestly believe that the Palestinians actually share your own beliefs, ideals and expectations, and that they shall not view your beliefs, ideals, expectations and any subsequent actions based on them extreme/radical/aggressive (put the right adjectives here) in their perspective (ie. do u think they see right and wrong the same was as you do)?

I am really interested to know. Although you probably can't speak for all Israelis, since I was "accused" of making too many assumptions here, it would be good to clear something up.

the above is in response to this.

If you would like to avoid stepping on tails, it would be wise to stop making assumptions and to make some sort of inquiry before forming an opinion, definitely before declaring your opinion on something as delicate as the way we educate our future generations.

but by the way, if you look back to the actual post where this issue was first triggered:

do u actually want to continue live like this? Because you are living in that region and you have this problem at hand, it makes it all the more imperative for you to education your children about not being so tough (again you means both sides), so extreme

this is how the above statement was intended to be interpreted:
"extreme/tough" is again in the view of your opponents (not my definition of extreme/tough)... "imperative" (only if you see peace and stability as the utmost importance, and that everything else somewhat comes second... we were discussing on a "hypothetical solution" to the issue, and not, as we've now evolved to, about right-and-wrong, therefore, it should not be seen as a statement "accusing" you of "brainwashing" the younger generations; again "you" here means you both sides.) If you view it in that spirit, it was nothing "tail-stepping" about it. It was just a suggestion that perhaps that would be how I see it as a first of a very long road to reconciliation. Because my point has always been really clear:

if no one yields
then no one will get anywhere towards peace (99% sure that this is a fact)

now stating this fact in the above potentially "tail-stepping" manner should not be viewed as a condemnation when you are not doing what I was suggesting (in that paragraph). I was simply stating the obvious (if you understand what I mean).

again, I don't believe in the saying "if you are not with us, you are against us...", I believe there is a neutral position and a lot of grey areas in this world.

 

[Yonoz]

Can you honestly tell me whether you (and/or your Israeli ppl, assuming that you are from Israel or there about; it certainly sounded to me that you were) are teaching (or going to be teaching) your children based on your own beliefs, ideals, expectations, religion etc (no matter what they actually are, the content is not the point here; it is whether you teach them only your version of the "story" <--- don't take this word literally)?

I will refer mostly to formal education - it would be difficult to discuss informal education.
The content does matter as it emphasizes pluralism.
Article 2 of the State Education Law (loosely translated):

The objectives of state education:
1. To educate for the love of one's fellow man, people and country, for loyalty to the State of Israel, for the respect of one's parents and family, heritage, cultural identity and tongue;
2. To instill the values that are in the Proclamation of the State of Israel and the values of the State of Israel and a Jewish and democratic state and to develop a sense of respect to human rights, basic freedoms, democratic values, observing of the law, others' culture and views, and to educate for the aspiration to peace and tolerance among people and peoples;
4. To teach the religion of Israel, the Jewish Peoples' history, legacy and tradition, to instill the awareness of the memory of the holocaust and bravery and to educate for their respect;
5. To develop the personality of the child, their creativity and different talents, for the full realization of their capabilities as people living a life of quality and meaning;
6. To form a base of knowledge for the child in the different fields of science, human creation of all types and generations, and in the basic skills they will require in their lives as mature adults in a free society, and to encourage physical activity and recreational culture;
7. To strengthen the power of judgment and criticism, to nurture intellectual curiosity, independent thought and initiative, and to develop awareness and alertness to changes and novelty;
8. To grant an equal opportunity to every child, to allow them to develop according to their paths and to create an atmosphere encouraging difference and supporting it;
9. To nurture involvement in the life of Israeli society, commitment to accept duties and fulfill them out of devotion and responsibility, willingness for mutual assistance, community aid, volunteering and aspiration for social justice in the State of Israel;
10. To develop a feeling of respect and responsibility to the natural environment and a link to the land, its landscapes, the fauna and flora;
11. To acknowledge the language, culture, history, legacy and unique traditions of the Arab population and other population groups in the State of Israel, and to acknowledge the equal rights of all Israeli citizens.

In the curricula for subjects such as history and citizenship there are guidelines for the emphasis of covering the subjects from different viewpoints.
This is the way I was educated, and hopefully it is how I will educate others. Naturally, not all Israelis share the same values and ideals; many years of conflict have raised intolerance and hatred. The education system is underfunded and understaffed and it is getting very difficult to reach children, but it remains that they are being educated for pluralism.

Do you hope that they will see the world and the situation around you in the same way as you (or your Israeli ppl) do (ie. how you see right and wrong)?

I have no children of my own (yet) so it is hard to answer that question honestly. I suppose I would like them to have a similar differentiation between right and wrong.
Israelis do not all see the world and situation around us in the same way; actually, we're a very argumentative people (as you may have noticed).

And finally, do you honestly believe that the Palestinians actually share your own beliefs, ideals and expectations, and that they shall not view your beliefs, ideals, expectations and any subsequent actions based on them extreme/radical/aggressive (put the right adjectives here) in their perspective (ie. do u think they see right and wrong the same was as you do)?

Again, I would not expect all Palestinians to have the same beliefs, ideals and expectations - they are not a "monolithic entity".
I know for a fact there are quite a few Palestinians who seem to share many beliefs and values with myself. Unfortunately they are mostly powerless within Palestinian society.
What I expect of all people - Palestinians, Israelis and others - is to place certain values such as the sanctity of life above other values, such as nationalism and religion. It's okay to be nationalist or religious - I'm quite nationalist myself - but to a certain extent.
I recognize and accept Palestinian nationalism and all but a sliver of Islam; I would not kill anyone for their nationalism or religion; I would not kill anyone for refusing to recognize my nationalism, yet there are many Palestinians and Muslims - a minority, but a frightening many nonetheless - who would end my life because of my nationality. I don't expect them to recognize my nationalism or accept it - only to place the ever-so-tangible, absolute, eternal ideal of life - any life - above these intangible, dynamic ideals of religion and nationalism. Furthermore, I expect those Palestinians and Muslims who place life above nationalism and religion to restrain, or at least not lend support to those who do not.

This isn't a moral point of reference from which one can lean away in the hopes of reaching a compromise. It is a necessary core from which compromise emerges. Only when we have settled this lowest common denominator can we move on to balancing the equation.
I hope that makes it a little clearer.

 

[mjsd]

Yonoz,

I don't expect them to recognize my nationalism or accept it

I see you've understood the main point of this long-winded and often misinterpreted (inevitable as we are not talking face-to-face where confusions may be cleared up straight away) discussion. A difference in opinions often set the line dividing right and wrong at a different spot. You are probably well aware of such problem. That's where the grey areas start to emerge and if not careful, actions based on this "ill-defined" perception of right and wrong will cause century-long conflicts and hatred. Impractical it may sound (since ppl are not "monolithic"), but understanding where your opponents draw the line is the first step in achieving reconciliation (ie. you need dialogues... or talks... that was the sticking point in those earlier posts). So, you believe that those maybe reasonable (by your standard) Palestinians are mostly happened to be powerless (ie. those you can actually get a meaningful diaogue going and talk peace). Have you ever tried sitting down and thought about why that may be the case? :uhh:

If you think there is no meaningful answer to that question. Then think about this question instead: why are nerds often being bullied at school? Here are some potential answers:
1. they are arrogant, they think they are so intellectually ahead of anyone else they have no respect for others
2. they do not fight back (ie. easy targets for the bullies) because of their ideals or fear
3. they are bookworm (ie. they are physically weak... again easy targets) who can't do a few push-ups or run a lap or two.
4. they are the teacher's pets (ie. side with the teachers in the eyes of the bullies) Bullies hate teacher's control and siding with them means nerds become a target of hate.

I don't wish to jump to the conclusion just yet for this or the original question, but can you see where I am getting at? There are probably some very good reasons why in society "reasonable" people are not in power. Can a tyrannt really be reasonable? Or a wealthy businessman for that matter? You may say pointing the finger at the business tycoons may be a bit too harsh (but then remember how we define "reasonable" is subjective) For example, I have this product that cost $1 to produce but I sell it at $2: $1 to break even and $1 for my work/salary. Now suppose I happen to find out that majority of the ppl (who are probably ignorant of the actual production cost) are willing to buy the product even if I charge $5, then the issue becomes a moral one: do I still charge them $2 because my ideals dictates that I shouldn't take advantage of others' ignorance or incompetence, or do I charge them $5 because that the aim of doing business (maximising profits, then maybe increase my workers' wages by a little bit too to make them happy enough and get some PR points), or do I charge them $4 and tell them at the same time YOU ARE SAVING $1! So, then you may ask how should we define being "reasonable" in this context. This is VERY subjective. Aside: I believe there is also a long term "economic issue" at play in the Israel/Palestine conflict too.

So, I digressed a bit. The net result of the above simplistic tycoon example is that if I sell it at $4 (and assume this product is a necessity), then I would become a lot wealthier (ie. powerful in this context) than I would otherwise be if I sell it at $2. An onlooker who know the true cost may see that as unreasonable and devious, while if I throw in a few well-designed/biased advertisments I may change the public opinion to my favor and I shall be seen as not a greedy/devious businessman who take advantage of others, but someone who has great financial management skills, hard working and reasonable and fair by giving everyone $1 DISCOUNT!

the moral here is that (like it or not, believe me or not) powerful people (those really powerful ones) don't become powerful by giving/sharing away their advantage over others (simply put if I share around all my advantages, then I no longer possesses the advantage which classifies me as powerful). And if you want to go back and address the original question (I am sure you don't need to), just think about who are holding the RPGs and AK-47s, then you know who are the powerful ones (cf. nerds vs bullies, or remember the big 5 in the UN security council).

OK, after all that I still haven't get to the point of finding peace. But perhaps we have resolved the matter about strong and weak ppl vs reasonable or not. As we all acknowledge that politics plays such a vital role, and only through time (a long time) and goodwill (sustained) can public opinion be slowly shifted. The so-called lunatics with kasam rockets will too treasure the value of good standard of living (rather than hiding in their rat holes/bunkers), will too see US notes as green (that's what ppl usually use to pay off the ransom right?); will too... etc. So, there will be a time when the scale tips over and the pursuit of higher standard of living, stability and a brighter future overtakes the needs for revenge (on something related to not themselves directly but just their forefathers perhaps), the needs for "face" and ego...

hence, let's not so easily be affected by emotions, stereotypes in our judgement of others; yeah the freaking kasam rockets hurt and I want to kill them right now to get even (ie. seek justice), but that is just a short term (politically correct, public opinion pleasing) solution (unless you kill them all... as I said before). For lasting peace, dare I say both sides must teach their ppl that those so-called short term solutions are not the best solution. It is not going to happen in a few years/decades, it will take a few generations (at least) with the scale slowly tipping over a bit by a bit through education (formal or informal), a sense of goodwill/determination, appropriate long term govt policies (ie. not only thinking about the next election).

Just look at the North and South Korea today compare to say 30 years ago. I admit the middle east has more issues than the Koreans. But at the end of day, it all comes down to whether you want a long, lasting solution or not. It is you guys' choice (as I said many times before). And if you do, then you probably have to unconditionally sacrifice something first, that's the price one has to paid unfortunately. Nothing is perfect in life. Besides, 300 yrs from now the issue of the "holocaust" will probably not cause as much controversies as today, just as not many ppl are burnt alive nowadays for saying that the Earth goes around the Sun. so if things are put in the right direction, time will heal differences. god bless you all.

 

[Hurkyl]

I don't have the time or patience needed to continually rebut your thinly veiled ad-hominem attacks so consider this my last response to your garbage.

Well, if you don't have the time to rebut imaginary attacks on your person, then what about simply giving a yes or no answer to my question? I would imagine that it would take very little of your time to state:

Yes, I, Art, in post #23, was denying the unreasonability of Palestinians prefering the destruction of Israel over stability​

or

No, I, Art, in post #23, was not denying the unreasonability of Palestinians prefering the destruction of Israel over stability,​

whichever is more appropriate. You've very strongly implied former, but in your absolute refusal to say it explicitly, you have left the question open.

If A does not equal B then it must equal C?

Which sums up your one dimensional twisted logic

Huh?

Try to demonstrate a little more maturity in this discussion Hurkyl.

Eh? I didn't realize I was being immature.

 

[Yonoz]

So, you believe that those maybe reasonable (by your standard) Palestinians are mostly happened to be powerless (ie. those you can actually get a meaningful diaogue going and talk peace). Have you ever tried sitting down and thought about why that may be the case? :uhh:

I've sat down with such Palestinians many times. They are mostly powerless because of circumstances and the current state of Palestinian society.

OK, after all that I still haven't get to the point of finding peace. But perhaps we have resolved the matter about strong and weak ppl vs reasonable or not. As we all acknowledge that politics plays such a vital role, and only through time (a long time) and goodwill (sustained) can public opinion be slowly shifted. The so-called lunatics with kasam rockets will too treasure the value of good standard of living (rather than hiding in their rat holes/bunkers), will too see US notes as green (that's what ppl usually use to pay off the ransom right?); will too... etc. So, there will be a time when the scale tips over and the pursuit of higher standard of living, stability and a brighter future overtakes the needs for revenge (on something related to not themselves directly but just their forefathers perhaps), the needs for "face" and ego...

Those holding those AK47s and RPGs and firing Qassam rockets do very much see US notes as green. It is a living for them and the source of their power. The terror organizations operate like a financial market: their headquarters in Damascus are contractors for Iran, receiving regular funding as well as incentives and bonuses. They, in turn, subcontract competing cells in the occupied territories. In this free market there are set prices for everything - from bullets and guns to suicide vests and IEDs. These material prices often serve as a measurement of the efficacy of the IDF's counter-smuggling efforts.

hence, let's not so easily be affected by emotions, stereotypes in our judgement of others; yeah the freaking kasam rockets hurt and I want to kill them right now to get even (ie. seek justice), but that is just a short term (politically correct, public opinion pleasing) solution (unless you kill them all... as I said before). For lasting peace, dare I say both sides must teach their ppl that those so-called short term solutions are not the best solution. It is not going to happen in a few years/decades, it will take a few generations (at least) with the scale slowly tipping over a bit by a bit through education (formal or informal), a sense of goodwill/determination, appropriate long term govt policies (ie. not only thinking about the next election).

Are you saying Israel shouldn't try to stop Qassam rocket fire into its population centers? Can you show me another country that tolerates daily attacks on its civilians?

 

[mjsd]

Are you saying Israel shouldn't try to stop Qassam rocket fire into its population centers? Can you show me another country that tolerates daily attacks on its civilians?

All I am saying is that perhaps firing back is not the best way to stop the future rocket attacks. By the way, no one should tolerate such "acts of aggression" (EVEN if they are doing so to get even with you). Any educated person will understand that firing back will do nothing more than inciting more attacks (like it or not), creating more sympathisers (locally and abroad) and "extremists". Sure, it certainly "feels good" for the public and poll pleasing, (in the same way that paracetamol can lower your fever but it can't cure your pneumonia; and then too much paracetamol would lead to kidney problems ), but, as I said before unless you kill them all, it is not going to stop the rocket from coming (which is your original purpose in this quest). So somehow by firing back you have not just contradicted your initial purpose of reducing the loss of life on your side from Kassam rockets (or whatever), you have also kept yourself in this endless cycle of strikes and counter-strikes. Remember the "business tycoon" example, with a bit of well-designed adverstisements by your opponents, you would then be seen as the aggressor in the eyes of their masses, creating more potential reasons/excuses for them to attack.

That is why I believe the "correct" education for the current/future generations will be important towards achieving peace in the longer run. The arts of war is not as 1-dimensional as "you hit us, we hit back; and if we hit hard enough, we will win" and the masses on both side (IF they value peace and good standard of living in the long run) must learn this. Put it simply: intelligent ppl tend to out-smart their problems and won't rely on spontaneous responses that are mostly influenced by emotions. Note there are many ways to get to the same goal, all I am saying here is just one potential example.

This kind of thing must be done multilaterally. Of course, at this very moment, education can't even happen in Palestine when there are hardly any properly funded schools, kids spending more times playing war games than reading books,... See the problem here? I am not contradicting myself here. What I am trying to say is that they are living their lives like there is no tomorrow, no future; they feel like they have nothing to lose, so may as well bring down a few more "suckers" next door with them. In doing so, they'd also get this false sense of pride; they'd feel they did something for their cause. Ironically, they are doing no one any favors in the shorter or longer run. By the way, those so-called rogue states that "support" Palestine by selling them arms are not really "supporting" them, they are just encouraging them to go more isolated, deeper into darkness and away from prosperity; and use them as pawns.

When people are poor and lacking a future (in their view), anything can seems reasonable in their view (even the destruction of your country) because to them they have nothing more to lose. This is the crux of the problem. BUT if they do see US dollars as green, that means there is a hope that those so-called lunatics are not so lunatic after all because they see the value in wealth. Who doesn't? That itself presents an opportunity for reconciliation. And Israel being the "stronger" side (I think) economically and in other aspects of development, could take the lead just as South Korea did in their march towards potential peace with North Korea (the leaders met earlier this week in NK for the second time. In 2000, the then SK president made a historical visit to KIM Jong-Il after "first secretly giving millions to the NK" to show their goodwill (of course SK has their own interest: they want to free some of their SK prisoners). NK on the other hand, after decades of severe poverty realizes that retaliations and egos will not get them any food and future. They have probably reached a breaking point and started to think "reasonably" and "rationally"; to think long term; to think how they can get out of their rat-holes and perhaps start enjoying life. If Kim doesn't want to lose the support of his ppl and army, he has no choice but to yield and a smart move too. Being headstrong won't get him anywhere; one must "out-smart".)

I said there is an opportunity because when the Palestinians have moved out of their current "live like no tomorrow" state, they will too value wealth and stability. Once they've got their Plasma TV, they won't want to trade that for a wooden box. When they have regained their sense of real purpose in life, they won't fall back to playing with rockets and this endless loop of killing themselves or getting killed; they won't want to return to the rat holes and play cat-and-mouse. Instead they would become smarter just like the North Koreans and doing the right thing not just for the sake of themselves but others too to gain more respect which will lead to more outside help. That's my expectation for someone who can see the value in wealth (of course not going to happen overnight, it will take a long time). So, for example, an economical bargaining could be a good start, then couple it with long term education programs. Yeah, if you can't find trust, you may buy some occasionally. Remember to alleivate poverty and change the attitude of a society, unilateral effort is not going be enough. If you see sincere actions by your opponent, you would start out being skeptical and then when the goodwill gesture is pretty much maintained then you will begin to shift your expectations and eventually trust may be rebuilt. Sincere dialogs and the resolve for lasting stability will be the pre-requisite for both sides. I think I have been talking for too long on this board and perhaps it is time to stop. Whether you (or others) agree with anything I've said, frankly, it doesn't matter and I don't care. In the end, one has one's own expectations, ideals and goals in life, my defintion of good standard may be your nightmare or vice-versa. My hope is that more and more people will eventually pick the "smarter" option.

 

[Yonoz]

All I am saying is that perhaps firing back is not the best way to stop the future rocket attacks. By the way, no one should tolerate such "acts of aggression" (EVEN if they are doing so to get even with you). Any educated person will understand that firing back will do nothing more than inciting more attacks (like it or not), creating more sympathisers (locally and abroad) and "extremists".

Those are assumptions again. So far, firing back seems to be the best way to ensure the safety of Israeli civilians, which is the ultimate goal. Experience proves a policy of restraint only leads to a violent breakdown, as it did with Hizbullah, Palestinian organizations and the Arab states.

Sure, it certainly "feels good" for the public and poll pleasing, (in the same way that paracetamol can lower your fever but it can't cure your pneumonia; and then too much paracetamol would lead to kidney problems ), but, as I said before unless you kill them all, it is not going to stop the rocket from coming (which is your original purpose in this quest).

More assumptions. So far the only actions are self-defensive, i.e. attacking the launchers and their operators, not retaliatory - e.g. attacking Hamas infrastructure.

So somehow by firing back you have not just contradicted your initial purpose of reducing the loss of life on your side from Kassam rockets (or whatever), you have also kept yourself in this endless cycle of strikes and counter-strikes. Remember the "business tycoon" example, with a bit of well-designed adverstisements by your opponents, you would then be seen as the aggressor in the eyes of their masses, creating more potential reasons/excuses for them to attack.

More false assumptions.

That is why I believe the "correct" education for the current/future generations will be important towards achieving peace in the longer run.

Agreed.

The arts of war is not as 1-dimensional as "you hit us, we hit back; and if we hit hard enough, we will win" and the masses on both side (IF they value peace and good standard of living in the long run) must learn this. Put it simply: intelligent ppl tend to out-smart their problems and won't rely on spontaneous responses that are mostly influenced by emotions. Note there are many ways to get to the same goal, all I am saying here is just one potential example.

You're patronizing again.
Then again, you're making the unintelligent assumption that "intelligent people out-smart their problems".

This kind of thing must be done multilaterally. Of course, at this very moment, education can't even happen in Palestine when there are hardly any properly funded schools, kids spending more times playing war games than reading books,... See the problem here? I am not contradicting myself here. What I am trying to say is that they are living their lives like there is no tomorrow, no future; they feel like they have nothing to lose, so may as well bring down a few more "suckers" next door with them.

You watch too much CNN, BBC, or (heaven forbid) France 2.
In Gaza the situation is indeed quite bad - but there is nothing we can do to better that. Even the currently operating crossings that are used to transport the most basic humanitarian aid are under attack by the Gazans' own government.

In doing so, they'd also get this false sense of pride; they'd feel they did something for their cause. Ironically, they are doing no one any favors in the shorter or longer run. By the way, those so-called rogue states that "support" Palestine by selling them arms are not really "supporting" them, they are just encouraging them to go more isolated, deeper into darkness and away from prosperity; and use them as pawns.

Agreed.

When people are poor and lacking a future (in their view), anything can seems reasonable in their view (even the destruction of your country) because to them they have nothing more to lose. This is the crux of the problem. BUT if they do see US dollars as green, that means there is a hope that those so-called lunatics are not so lunatic after all because they see the value in wealth. Who doesn't? That itself presents an opportunity for reconciliation. And Israel being the "stronger" side (I think) economically and in other aspects of development, could take the lead just as South Korea did in their march towards potential peace with North Korea (the leaders met earlier this week in NK for the second time. In 2000, the then SK president made a historical visit to KIM Jong-Il after "first secretly giving millions to the NK" to show their goodwill (of course SK has their own interest: they want to free some of their SK prisoners). NK on the other hand, after decades of severe poverty realizes that retaliations and egos will not get them any food and future. They have probably reached a breaking point and started to think "reasonably" and "rationally"; to think long term; to think how they can get out of their rat-holes and perhaps start enjoying life. If Kim doesn't want to lose the support of his ppl and army, he has no choice but to yield and a smart move too. Being headstrong won't get him anywhere; one must "out-smart".)

You have no idea do you? :rofl:
Palestinian minister admits aid millions lost

An estimated £362.5 million has flowed into Palestinian government coffers from abroad since the election that brought Hamas to power and ushered in a period of internal conflict that came close to all-out civil war.

The European Union alone provided £59.5 million last year and sent a far greater sum directly to hospitals, power generation projects and to families in need.
...
He was reluctant to say how he would do that, perhaps understandably, given that unpaid security forces have a habit of barging into government offices with guns blazing, and that gunmen recently shot up the outside of his office.

Now some of Mr Abbas's presidential guard is assigned to his premises - a stark reminder of the connection between restoring security and bringing finances under control. "This will be extremely difficult," he said. "It's virtually impossible."

I said there is an opportunity because when the Palestinians have moved out of their current "live like no tomorrow" state, they will too value wealth and stability. Once they've got their Plasma TV, they won't want to trade that for a wooden box. When they have regained their sense of real purpose in life, they won't fall back to playing with rockets and this endless loop of killing themselves or getting killed; they won't want to return to the rat holes and play cat-and-mouse. Instead they would become smarter just like the North Koreans and doing the right thing not just for the sake of themselves but others too to gain more respect which will lead to more outside help. That's my expectation for someone who can see the value in wealth (of course not going to happen overnight, it will take a long time). So, for example, an economical bargaining could be a good start, then couple it with long term education programs. Yeah, if you can't find trust, you may buy some occasionally. Remember to alleivate poverty and change the attitude of a society, unilateral effort is not going be enough. If you see sincere actions by your opponent, you would start out being skeptical and then when the goodwill gesture is pretty much maintained then you will begin to shift your expectations and eventually trust may be rebuilt. Sincere dialogs and the resolve for lasting stability will be the pre-requisite for both sides.

I think I have been talking for too long on this board and perhaps it is time to stop. Whether you (or others) agree with anything I've said, frankly, it doesn't matter and I don't care. In the end, one has one's own expectations, ideals and goals in life, my defintion of good standard may be your nightmare or vice-versa. My hope is that more and more people will eventually pick the "smarter" option.

Watch less BBC.

 

[Art]

Yonoz you are either deliberately posting blatant untruths or you are incredibly and hopelessly uninformed.

Those are assumptions again. So far, firing back seems to be the best way to ensure the safety of Israeli civilians, which is the ultimate goal. Experience proves a policy of restraint only leads to a violent breakdown, as it did with Hizbullah, Palestinian organizations and the Arab states.

Lets begin by looking at Israel's 'restraint' around the time frame you referenced and to avoid any argument re the accuracy of the data I'll use Israeli sources.

Israeli Casualties: Adults and Minors
September 2000 to May 5, 2002

Civilian Injuries: 2,707
Civilian Deaths: 319


Israeli Fatalities of Minors Under Age 18
October 2001 to May 5, 2002

Israelis Minors Killed by Palestinians in the Occupied Territories: 14 (ages 5 months to 17)

Israeli Minors Killed by Palestinians in Israel: 37 (ages 7 months to 17)

Source: B'Tselem, Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories

Palestinian Casualties: Adults and Minors in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

September 2000 to May 6, 2002

Injuries: 19,189
Deaths: 1,538

Source: Palestine Red Crescent Society

Palestinian Fatalities of Minors Under Age 18
October 2001 to May 5, 2002
Palestinian Minors Killed by Israeli Security Forces in Occupied Territories;

210 (ages 4 months to 17)

Palestinian Minors Killed by Israeli Citizens in Occupied Territories
1 (age 2 months) (by gunfire)

Palestinian Minors Killed by Israeli Security Forces in Israel
1 (age 14) (by Israeli police force)

Deaths of Palestinian Minors Caused by Delay in Obtaining Medical Treatment Due to Israeli Restriction of Movement
8 (stillborn to age 11)

Source: B'Tselem, Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories

It seems Israel's policy of restraint was murder for the Palestinians .

More assumptions. So far the only actions are self-defensive, i.e. attacking the launchers and their operators, not retaliatory - e.g. attacking Hamas infrastructure.

There are dozens and dozens of examples of Israel attacking ordinary Palestinians so let's take a few recent examples;

The bloodshed occurred early Wednesday with Israeli tanks poised just outside the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun. The tanks fired 10 artillery rounds into the town's center and killed 19 people, the medical sources said.

Among the dead was a 13-member family which included seven children, the sources said. The other six killed were also civilians, they said.

This mass murder was condemned by all of the world's leaders except of course the USA.

Despite her pain, A'isha spoke out: "It was 6:30 pm. We were harvesting the barely near the Sufa crossing, the sun was setting, while myself, my father and my brothers and sisters were all bending down in our field.

"My father asked us to leave our brother Mohammad in the car. We left the field, then the Zannana [unmanned drone plane] fired a missile that hit us directly," Aisha says.

"My father rushed to us and called for the ambulance, then another missile was fired. I kept dragging my body until I arrived at our house and asked help from the neighbors, then a third missile was hit. By then, I heard people saying, 'the car was went off' and I learned that my sister Samah and my brother Ahmad were killed, while my father was injured," A'isha recalls.

"There were no gunmen near us, it's our field, we come here everyday to harvest the barely. Why did they hit us? What is our fault?" A'isha wonders, while sighing bitterly at the loss of her family.

A lot of us like A'isha wonder what possible gain there is from acts such as these unless yhe intention is to provoke a response to 'justify' even harsher treatment of the Palestinians.

Israel Accused of Whitewash Over Palestinian Deaths
by Phil Reeves in Jerusalem

An internal inquiry by the Israeli army into the killing of 12 Palestinian civilians by its forces last week, including four fruit-pickers blown up by a tank shell packed with thousands of darts, has cleared the soldiers involved.

Investigations by the Israeli army into the killing or maiming of Arab civilians in the 23-month conflict have almost invariably resulted in whitewashes, but this did not diminish the condemnation with which yesterday's findings were greeted by Western sources, Israeli peace activists and Palestinian officials.

The inquiry said the "open-fire" orders that led the Israeli army to fire a 120mm air- burst shell packed with 3,000 flechettes (inch-long darts), at a Palestinian family in their camp in a fig orchard in the Gaza Strip, were "appropriate". So, too, were the orders given to the snipers who picked off four laborers in a West Bank quarry on Sunday, allegedly because they saw them cutting a fence. And so was the command issued to an Israeli death squad in a helicopter that killed two teenagers and two children aged six and 10 in a botched assassination.

The inquiry found that in the first two of these cases, both on Palestinian-controlled land inside the occupied territories invaded by the Israeli army, soldiers had acted because they identified Palestinians who were behaving "suspiciously", including being in an "unauthorized area" late at night, crawling towards an illegal Israeli settlement and infiltrating Israeli agricultural land.

An Israeli army statement did not confirm or deny using a tank flechette round. But The Independent has examined an X-ray of one victim. Darts were embedded in his chest and stomach. The deaths of the children caused by the helicopter missile strike, in the West Bank village of Tubas, were dismissed by the Israeli army as "collateral damage" that was "probably caused by a technical malfunction".

The inquiry was ordered by the Defense Minister, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who complimented the Israeli army yesterday on its "thorough" work, a military statement said.

And the totals for last year

Israel beats Palestine in civilian death match 660 to 17
Israel killed 660 Palestine civilians including 141 children while losing 17 of their own to Palestinians in another grim year of conflict in the Middle East, according to an Israeli rights group. Israel is holding 345 children as prisoners, many of whom are not even aware of the charges against them. Things look better for 2007 though, with the ceasefire.

And let's not even get into the massacre of 1100 Lebanese civilians, one third of which were children, by the IDF.

You watch too much CNN, BBC, or (heaven forbid) France 2.
In Gaza the situation is indeed quite bad - but there is nothing we can do to better that. Even the currently operating crossings that are used to transport the most basic humanitarian aid are under attack by the Gazans' own government.

The Gaza strip is a prison camp with no entry or egress without Israel's permission which has also in a new cruel twist been recently denoted as a hostile area by Israel so they can create even more suffering for the wretched inhabitants.

You obviously do not like unbiased news sources like the BBC (provenly unbiased after an investigation following complaints by zionists) so I wonder where you get your ideas from. I can't imagine even the most biased program shows the sort of stuff you claim do you simply look at a blank screen whilst making it up??

 

[Hurkyl]

And let's not even get into the massacre of 1100 Lebanese civilians, one third of which were children, by the IDF.

When did that happen? The only recent event in Lebanon I recall is an armed conflict with Hezbollah.

 

[Hurkyl]

Lets begin by looking at Israel's 'restraint' around the time frame you referenced and to avoid any argument re the accuracy of the data I'll use Israeli sources.

It would be better to use figures from the actual time that Yonoz was referring to. It's hard to know what happened during the period of restraint if the figures you're quoting involve time periods outside of this period of restraint.

It seems Israel's policy of restraint was murder for the Palestinians .

Was it? It seems that you haven't provided anything to compare these numbers to, so I can't tell.

 

[Art]

When did that happen? The only recent event in Lebanon I recall is an armed conflict with Hezbollah.

You're probably confused by which massacre I meant as there have been so many committed by Israel over the years. To clear up your confusion I was referring to the massacre committed in Lebanon this year.

Massacre in Lebanon
Why is the “war on terror” killing children?
by Robert Fisk

IT will be called the massacre of Marwaheen. All the civilians killed by the Israelis had first been ordered to abandon their homes in the border village by loudspeaker; and leave they did, 20 of them in a convoy of civilian cars.

That’s when the Israeli jets arrived to bomb them, killing 20 Lebanese, at least nine of them children. The local fire brigade could not put out the fires as they all burned alive in the inferno. Another “terrorist” target had been eliminated.

Later, the Israelis produced more “terrorist” targets — petrol stations in the Bekaa Valley all the way up to the frontier city of Hermel in northern Lebanon and another series of bridges on one of the few escape routes to Damascus, this time between Chtaura and the border village of Masnaa. On day two, Israeli jets came first to the little village of Dweir near Nabatiya in southern Lebanon, where an Israeli plane dropped a bomb on the home of a Shia Muslim cleric. He was killed. So was his wife. So were eight of his children. One was decapitated. All they could find of a baby was its head and torso which a young villager brandished in fury in front of the cameras. Then the planes visited another home in Dweir and disposed of a family of seven.

 

[Hurkyl]

To clear up your confusion I was referring to the massacre committed this year.

Thank you. I had not heard of this event.