News What do you do with a problem like Ahmadinejad?

[kyleb]

I'm referring to the land of the West Bank that I've been talking about being taken thought this thread. What has been taken by Israel up to April 2006 can be seen marked in shades of blue http://www.btselem.org/Download/Separation_Barrier_Map_Eng.pdf" that tracks news on the problem.

 

[Yonoz]

All you've got there is more unaccredited and out of context translations along with complete denial of what Iran has plainly stated needs to be done to be done for them to accept the existence of Israel.

Can you provide these plainly stated terms?

 

[Curious6]

Kyleb, it is slightly naive to believe that the root cause of the conflict or the thorn that is actually perpetuating it is a few square miles of territory. If there is one clearly obvious lesson that must be drawn from the recent conflict in Lebanon and the nearly daily missiles fired from the Gaza strip, despite the complete and total withdrawal from these two areas, is that this conflict is not a question of territory. This is supported by what recent history has taught us and is amply corroborated by the explicit statements of the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah. Netanyahu summed it up concisely when he said the conflict was one of terror, not of territory.

 

[kyleb]

Can you provide these plainly stated terms?

We already talked about the example you provided when you linked https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1071211&postcount=265" directly:

Mr Khatami said Iran had a "moral problem with Israel because of the occupation" of Palestinian land.

"Occupation does not bring legitimacy," he said, adding that it was "very dangerous to occupy somewhere and then claim ownership of that land".

"At the same time, we do not interfere in the matters of others and we will respect the Palestinian people's decision," the Iranian president said.

"Any decision they make will be acceptable to us."

 

[kyleb]

Kyleb, it is slightly naive to believe that the root cause of the conflict or the thorn that is actually perpetuating it is a few square miles of territory.

The naivety you are finding is in your misunderstanding of what I'm saying here. Please feel free to ask for elaboration, and of course reading or rereading the whole thread might help to clear up your confusion here as well.

 

[Curious6]

I am not confused, kyleb. I was only pointing out that, in my opinion, the whole issue is not about whether or not there are settlements in the West Bank. If that were the root issue, why are there still rocket attacks emanating from the Gaza Strip, despite the complete withdrawal of settlers and troops? So, the whole withdrawal to pre-1967 borders doesn't make sense to me. Some people think a withdrawal to the so-called Green Line would represent a miraculous ending to the conflict. They believe frequent internal strife, violent confrontations, economic hardship, and all other various grievances afflicting the Palestinian territories would somehow abruptly come to an end. This is at best a naive attitude, and at worst, self-delusional. I believe that a focus on the issue of the disputed territories distracts attention from the deeper root cause of the Mideast conflict. It this cause that should be addressed clearly, and once it has been settled (if this is not too wishful thinking in itself) then the secondary, derived problems can start to be considered.

 

[Hurkyl]

We already talked about the example you provided when you linked https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1071211&postcount=265" directly:

Er, where are the plainly stated terms?

 

[kyleb]

"Any decision they make will be acceptable to us."

 

[Hurkyl]

"Any decision they make will be acceptable to us."

And how, pray tell, does that explain

"what ... needs to be done to be done for [Iran] to accept the existence of Israel."

?

 

[kyleb]

It explains the fact that Iran's acceptance of Israel is directly conditional to Palestine's. When Palestine acknowledges Israel's existence then Iran will be happy to do the same. I'm not sure what is so hard for you to grasp in that, but hopefully your government finally inteds to start working towards peace now that they claim again they are http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090800509.html" .

 

[Hurkyl]

It explains the fact that Iran's acceptance of Israel is directly conditional to Palestine's. When Palestine acknowledges Israel's existence then Iran will be happy to do the same.

And how, pray tell, does that explain

"what ... needs to be done to be done for [Iran] to accept the existence of Israel."

?



If you can't see it, let me paraphrase: your quote says:

"We'll accept you when the Palestinians do."

But it says absolutely nothing about what needs to be done for that to happen.

 

[Evo]

All you've got there is more unaccredited and out of context translations along with complete denial of what Iran has plainly stated needs to be done to be done for them to accept the existence of Israel. What drives your persistence in that, is stealing the Palestinian peoples land that important to you or what?

"At the same time, we do not interfere in the matters of others and we will respect the Palestinian people's decision," the Iranian president said.

"Any decision they make will be acceptable to us." I guess so.

Right, and the only thing they'll accept is no Israel.

 

[kyleb]

Israel has been running the Palestinians off their land since the nation's inception, of course the Palestinians aren't going to accept Israel as long as Israel acts as if it is acceptable to continue doing that. Are you laughing because you are not aware of what is going on, or do you really find humor in this? And if the latter, do you also find humor in the fact that our forefathers ran the Native American people off their land?

 

[Hurkyl]

do you really find humor in this?

It's the humor. I would have thought you were joking if you didn't look like you really believe this stuff.

Do you really not see how ridiculous "we do not interfere in the matters of others" is?



Furthermore, there is a common perception that the Palestinians simply will not accept the existence of Israel. So, from your statement, it would follow that Iran would never accept the existence of Israel either.

To paraphrase -- you're using a statement like "We'll accept Israel... when pigs fly!" as if it says what needs to happen for Iran to accept Israel. It would be (mildly) funny if it weren't for the fact you seem to believe it.

 

[kyleb]

Again, the Palestinians aren't going to be accepting Israel as long as Israel keeps taking their land. How could you believe it would make any sense for them to do otherwise?

 

[Hurkyl]

kyleb: since you keep evading it, I'm going to assume that you do not wish to defend

what Iran has plainly stated needs to be done to be done for them to accept the existence of Israel.

and want to move on to what you're discussing now.

Again, the Palestinians aren't going to be accepting Israel as long as Israel keeps taking their land. How could you believe it would make any sense for them to do otherwise?

Because it's a generally healthy thing to accept the consequences of one's actions.

But this is still just a red herring -- the important issue is not accepting Israel, but accepting Israel's right to exist. There's a whole world of difference between

(1) Rejecting Israel's right to exist.

and

(2) Accepting Israel's right to exist, yet opposing its actions.

 

[kyleb]

You really want me to explain this to you?:

And how, pray tell, does that explain

"what ... needs to be done to be done for [Iran] to accept the existence of Israel."

?
If you can't see it, let me paraphrase: your quote says:

"We'll accept you when the Palestinians do."

But it says absolutely nothing about what needs to be done for that to happen.

I'm not trying to evade anything here, so if you really need me to explain how one parties support can be directly conditional to another party, I suppose I can go though a Sally, Jane and Dick to walk you though it. I took that as a rhetorical question motivated by your speculation that the Palestinians will never accept Israel though, so I figure it was natural to move on to discussing that issue. But you tell me, where are we at here?

 

[Hurkyl]

But you tell me, where are we at here?

You have painted a picture where, if someone asks Iran, "What does Israel need to do for you to accept their existence," Iran replies, "ask the Palestinians".

You call this as a plain statement of what Israel needs to do. I say that it bears no resemblance to what you call it.

Although what you have said is a plainly stated criterion for Iran accepting Israel's existence, it says absolutely nothing about what Israel needs to do.

I took that as a rhetorical question motivated by your speculation that the Palestinians will never accept Israel though

The above is the main point -- that even in the abstract you have not satisfied the challenge. This is just heaping more problems onto the pile.

Even if we could somehow be convinced that "when the Palestinians accept your existence" is plainly stated terms for Iran to accept Israel's existence¹, we are currently in a situation where the Palestinian government don't just oppose Israeli actions, but as a matter of principle oppose Israel's existence.

Let me repeat that -- they oppose Israel's existence, and not simply Israel's actions or inactions. And that opposition is not due to any Israeli action or inaction, but is a fundamental tenet of their government.

So from that point of view, saying "when the Palestinians accept your existence" is rather daft in the current climate. (Which may or may not change in the future)



1: I just want to repeat the emphasis that this is the main point, and not what follows.

 

[kyleb]

Here, let us try it like this:

Dick said he had a "moral problem with Jane because of the occupation" of Sally's land.

"Occupation does not bring legitimacy," he said, adding that it was "very dangerous to occupy somewhere and then claim ownership of that land".

"At the same time, we do not interfere in the matters of others and we will respect Sally's decision," Dick said.

"Any decision Sally makes will be acceptable me."

Now, can you explain what Jane has to do to earn Dick's acceptance?

 

[Hurkyl]

Now, can you explain what Jane has to do to earn Dick's acceptance?

No, I can't. Dick has not said how Jane can earn Dick's acceptance -- Dick has merely passed the buck onto Sally.

 

[kyleb]

Dick can't pass what was never his to begin with, rather he is showing respect for the fact that it Sally's land which has been taken, and hence it is Sally's buck.

 

[Hurkyl]

Dick can't pass what was never his to begin with

(1) How can it be anybody but Dick's choice whether or not Dick accepts Jane's existence?

(2) Dick telling Jane "it's Sally's choice" is not a plain statement of what Jane needs to do for Dick to accept her.

 

[kyleb]

(1) How can it be anybody but Dick's choice whether or not Dick accepts Jane's existence?

Do you understand why as if I took your car from you, Evo would be in no position to tell me it is mine? Same reason here.

(2) Dick telling Jane "it's Sally's choice" is not a plain statement of what Jane needs to do for Dick to accept her.

'Dick' has even offered to mediate the deal, that is as plain as it gets.

 

[Hurkyl]

Do you understand why as if I took your car from you, Evo would be in no position to tell me it is mine? Same reason here.

But that's not what we're talking about. If you took my car from you, Evo can still decide whether or not she thinks you have a right to live.

(And, of course, Evo can make up her own mind about whether she thinks you have a right to my car)

'Dick' has even offered to mediate the deal, that is as plain as it gets.

Offering to mediate a deal is not "a plain statement of what Jane needs to do for Dick to accept her."

 

[kyleb]

But that's not what we're talking about. If you took my car from you, Evo can still decide whether or not she thinks you have a right to live.

My right to live isn't in question though, but rather my right to exist in your car.

(And, of course, Evo can make up her own mind about whether she thinks you have a right to my car)

Where exactly do you think Evo gets the authority to tell you that your car isn't yours?

Offering to mediate a deal is not "a plain statement of what Jane needs to do for Dick to accept her."

Again, that is as plain as it gets.

 

[Astronuc]

Israel has been running the Palestinians off their land since the nation's inception, of course the Palestinians aren't going to accept Israel as long as Israel acts as if it is acceptable to continue doing that. Are you laughing because you are not aware of what is going on, or do you really find humor in this? And if the latter, do you also find humor in the fact that our forefathers ran the Native American people off their land?

I think Evo was pointing out that Iran would not accept existence of Israel, because the Palestinians, or more accurately, some Palestinians do not accept Israel. A good many, perhaps a majority would/do accept Israel's right to exist, but a militant fraction (perhaps a minority) do not. There is no humor in the taking of other people's land. That is not what Evo found humorous.

Again, the Palestinians aren't going to be accepting Israel as long as Israel keeps taking their land. How could you believe it would make any sense for them to do otherwise?

Perhaps if militant Palestinian groups would stop attacking Israel, Israel would not be so inclined to take the land. From a standpoint of security, it makes sense for Israel to appropriate land from which attacks are launched. If I allowed a criminal to use my house as a haven, with full knowledge of the criminal activities, be they theft or assault or homicide, then the authorities would be within the right to appropriate my property and incarcerate me as an accessory.

As for Israelis "running the Palestinians off their land since the nation's inception", that was not initially the case as was pointed out. It was after the Arab nations attacked Israel, that Israel starting taking land. In some cases, the local Arabs simply left the land which was in the middle of military conflict, with the assumption that they would return once the Arabs defeated Israel. Well, of course, that didn't happen.

 

[Astronuc]

Meanwhile,

In Washington, Iran's Khatami Calls for Dialogue
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5786976

Morning Edition, September 8, 2006 · Former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami's is visiting the United States, appearing at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., on Thursday.

Khatami said the U.S. and Iran should try to resolve their long-standing differences through dialogue. He is the most prominent Iranian politician to visit the United States since 1979.

Returning with a Sense of Iran on the Rise
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5777007

All Things Considered, September 6, 2006 · Washington Post columnist David Ignatius says Iranians feel their nation's star is rising. Talk of a coming conflict with the U.S. is largely dismissed. Ignatius tells Robert Siegel about his recent trip to Iran.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5748333
Iranian Public Concerned About Economy, Not Nukes

Morning Edition, September 1, 2006 · While international attention is focused on Iran's nuclear activities, much of the Iranian public is asking what President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is doing to improve the economy. Some are worried that international sanctions tied to Iran's nuclear program could hold back the country's economy.

Renee Montagne talks to New York Times reporter Michael Slackman about political divisions within Iran.

A Conservative Perspective on U.S.-Iran Relations
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5736783

Fresh Air from WHYY, August 30, 2006 · Conservative thinker Michael Ledeen holds the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute, but prefers the term "democratic revolutionary" to "neoconservative." He discusses the current and future U.S. policy toward Iran, arguing that the United States should encourage change from within the country, rather than launching an all-out attack.

I am all for dialogue, but I have reservations based on the parties which would be involved at this point. I cannot see a productive dialog between the Bush administration and Ahmadinejad or the Iranian government or clerics. Someone pointed out to me that Bush and Ahmadinejad behave just like teenagers or school-yard bullies. Bush is adamant about US supremacy and the desire not to be challenged by any other country. Iran is determined to develop itself to stand up to the US, and perhaps even challenge the US in the Middle East and perhaps elsewhere. Therein lies a recipe for conflict.

Why do nations select leaders like this?

 

[kyleb]

As for Israelis "running the Palestinians off their land since the nation's inception", that was not initially the case as was pointed out.

Running people off their land is how colonization happens. You can try rationalize it with 'Manifest Destiny' style arguments or such, but Zionists have been running the Palestinian people off from the moment the first one showed up in Palestine and have shown no intention of stopping. So were are you suggesting what was pointed out?

 

[Yonoz]

Zionists have been running the Palestinian people off from the moment the first one showed up in Palestine and have shown no intention of stopping.

Since the Camp David Accords Israel has handed over to Arab nations more than its current total size. Israel's foreign policy proves Israel has no expansionist agenda. The Likkud party whose manifesto is that of Ze'ev Jabotinski that called for a state encompassing both banks of the Jordan river has carried out the biggest territorial concessions. There are a handful of Zionists that feel the redemption of land is more important than other Zionist principles, but most right-wingers correctly see further territorial concessions as a gamble on our home's security - and they do not like the odds.

 

[Yonoz]

Why do nations select leaders like this?

Well in one case the nation didn't really have a choice and in the other I guess the nation's citizenry simply didn't care enough to show up at the voting booths.

 

[Hurkyl]

My right to live isn't in question though, but rather my right to exist in your car.

I thought you were supposed to be Israel? The whole problem, from the Israeli POV, is that Evo and her buddies deny your right to live.

From the inception of the organization to the present the elimination of the state of Israel has been Hezbollah's primary goal.

Hamas is opposed to the existence of Israel

Where exactly do you think Evo gets the authority to tell you that your car isn't yours?

Who said anything about authority? Evo is the only one who can make up Evo's mind whether she believes the car is mine, and if she does, whether she believes you're justified in confiscating it. (After all, I've been using it for decades of drive-by shootings of your home)

Whether Evo, or anyone else, has the 'authority' to take any sort of action upon the situation is a different question entirely.

Again, that is as plain as it gets.

While plain, it's not a statement of "what Jane needs to do for Dick to accept her."

 

[kyleb]

Since the Camp David Accords Israel has handed over to Arab nations more than its current total size.

That does nothing to change the fact that http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/760251.html 'Zionist colonization must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population.' There is no two ways around it, to can't expect people to respect your nation's right to exist when it was built from and continues to be expanded by the taking of other people's land; not until you stop your nation from taking their land even have hope of peace. Unfortunately, in the name of Zionism and Middle East dominance, our leaders are actively trying to push us into this war with Iran. Surely expanding your boarders and and subjugating your neighbors isn't truly more important than peace to you?

 

[Anttech]

"You can’t drive a knife into a man’s back nine inches, pull it out six inches, and call it progress."

 

[Hurkyl]

Unfortunately, in the name of Zionism and Middle East dominance, our leaders are actively trying to push us into this war with Iran.

I thought they were doing it in the name of nonproliferation.

I know I listen to the media very little, but I'm sure that even I would have heard if Bush actually said "Let's go to Iran so that we can dominate the region".

Surely expanding your boarders and and subjugating your neighbors isn't truly more important than peace to you?

Surely you would prefer that the people shooting at you do it from "way over there", rather than "right nextdoor"?

 

[Anttech]

I thought they were doing it in the name of nonproliferation.

I know I listen to the media very little, but I'm sure that even I would have heard if Bush actually said "Let's go to Iran so that we can dominate the region".
Surely you would prefer that the people shooting at you do it from "way over there", rather than "right nextdoor"?

Bush has never actually stated his intentions clearly before, or rather the reasons behind his action.

If the USA will not nonproliferated, but forces Iran to nonproliferate, it is because the USA wants to dominate Iran, and will not allow Iran to Dominate the USA. SURELY (pllleeeaaasseeeeeee) you see that?

 

[Hurkyl]

Bush has never actually stated his intentions clearly before, or rather the reasons behind his action.

Okay, but kyleb said that "Zionism and Middle East dominance" was the reason Bush is overtly using to justify a war with Iran.

I figure kyleb probably meant to make claims about Bush's secret intent and just used a poor choice of words, but frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if he meant it as stated.

 

[Yonoz]

You mention Ze'ev Jabotinsky, he was an intelligent man who understood this all the way http://www.jabotinsky.org/Jaboworld/docs/Iron%20Wall.doc 'Zionist colonization must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population.'

Have you become a fan of Jabo?
I thought you'd be taking me seriously by now. You do realize I actually read the sources you present - especially when you selectively quote single sentences. And come on, seriously - I know Jabotinsky's teachings quite well. For the sake of our readers who may not be as suspicious or as familiar with this topic as I, let us begin with Jabo's introduction:

I am reputed to be an enemy of the Arabs, who wants to have them ejected from Palestine, and so forth. It is not true.

Emotionally, my attitude to the Arabs is the same as to all other nations – polite indifference. Politically, my attitude is determined by two principles. First of all, I consider it utterly impossible to eject the Arabs from Palestine. There will always be two nations in Palestine – which is good enough for me, provided the Jews become the majority. And secondly, I belong to the group that once drew up the Helsingfors Programme , the programme of national rights for all nationalities living in the same State. In drawing up that programme, we had in mind not only the Jews , but all nations everywhere, and its basis is equality of rights.

I am prepared to take an oath binding ourselves and our descendants that we shall never do anything contrary to the principle of equal rights, and that we shall never try to eject anyone. This seems to me a fairly peaceful credo.

But it is quite another question whether it is always possible to realize a peaceful aim by peaceful means. For the answer to this question does not depend on our attitude to the Arabs; but entirely on the attitude of the Arabs to us and to Zionism.

You can see where this is going. I'll get to the important bit, look at what Jabo had to say about reaching an agreement with the Arab population:

What is impossible is a voluntary agreement. As long as the Arabs feel that there is the least hope of getting rid of us, they will refuse to give up this hope in return for either kind words or for bread and butter, because they are not a rabble, but a living people. And when a living people yields in matters of such a vital character it is only when there is no longer any hope of getting rid of us, because they can make no breach in the iron wall. Not till then will they drop their extremist leaders whose watchword is "Never!" And the leadership will pass to the moderate groups, who will approach us with a proposal that we should both agree to mutual concessions. Then we may expect them to discuss honestly practical questions, such as a guarantee against Arab displacement, or equal rights for Arab citizen, or Arab national integrity.

And when that happens, I am convinced that we Jews will be found ready to give them satisfactory guarantees, so that both peoples can live together in peace, like good neighbours.
But the only way to obtain such an agreement, is the iron wall, which is to say a strong power in Palestine that is not amenable to any Arab pressure. In other words, the only way to reach an agreement in the future is to abandon all idea of seeking an agreement at present.

Would you think so highly of him if you were reading this back in 1937? Some of his followers today still believe that the Jewish State should encompass Jordan as well as Israel and the occupied territories - I don't think you'd get along too well with these characters. So let us not kid ourselves - Jabotinsky believed in an all-out approach and thought the British would establish Israel as part of the UK...

There is no two ways around it, to can't expect people to respect your nation's right to exist when it was built from and continues to be expanded by the taking of other people's land; not until you stop your nation from taking their land even have hope of peace.

Let's dispense with the silly mantras, please.
They're nothing more than a waste of time and bandwidth.

Unfortunately, in the name of Zionism and Middle East dominance, our leaders are actively trying to push us into this war with Iran.

One for the textbooks.
At last, you show your true colours.

Surely expanding your boarders and and subjugating your neighbors isn't truly more important than peace to you?

Yeah, that and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel_against_Jews" , I'm sure you're familiar with those.

 

[kyleb]

Yonoz, I respect Jabotinsky's intellect, but I'm not fan by any means. As for the context you quoted, it doesn't change what I quoted; 'Zionist colonization must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population.' So again, is continuing to take the Palestinians land really so important to you that you would rather we start a war with Iran rather than stop?

I thought they were doing it in the name of nonproliferation.

Nah, if nonproliferation was the goal then we wouldn't be looking to hook India up with more nukes.

I know I listen to the media very little, but I'm sure that even I would have heard if Bush actually said "Let's go to Iran so that we can dominate the region".

Perhaps you've heard the plans referred to under a more benign sounding catch phrase like "a new Middle East" or such.

Surely you would prefer that the people shooting at you do it from "way over there", rather than "right nextdoor"?

I was asking if you really wanted people to stop shooting at you. Am I to take your answer to mean that you would rather people continue to shoot at you as you continue to take their land? There is no reason to play fools here, that has been the process from the begining; quoting http://www.jabotinsky.org/Jaboworld/docs/Iron%20Wall.doc again:

... We may tell them whatever we like about the innocence of our aims, watering them down and sweetening them with honeyed words to make them palatable, but they know what we want, as well as we know what they do not want. They feel at least the same instinctive jealous love of Palestine, as the old Aztecs felt for ancient Mexico , and their Sioux for their rolling Prairies.

To imagine, as our Arabophiles do, that they will voluntarily consent to the realisation of Zionism. In return for the moral and material conveniences which the Jewish colonist brings with him, is a childish notion, which has at bottom a kind of contempt for the Arab people; it means that they despise the Arab race, which they regard as a corrupt mob that can be bought and sold, and are willing to give up their fatherland for a good railway system.

All Natives Resist Colonists​

There is no justification for such a belief. It may be that some individual Arabs take bribes. But that does not mean that the Arab people of Palestine as a whole will sell that fervent patriotism that they guard so jealously, and which even the Papuans will never sell. Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonised.

That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of "Palestine" into the "Land of Israel."

So the question is; when will Israel call this transformation complete?

 

[Yonoz]

kyleb, it is quite apparent to me that no answer I give will satisfy you. You ignoringly repeat half-truths that I have refuted. I see no sense in repeating myself just to have you bring us back to square one again.
You have exposed your core belief, i.e. that the millions of Zionists and their supporters seek "Middle East domination" (in your own words) and that Zionism is a war-mongering expansionist ideology. To me, Zionism is about ensuring my nation's survival. This necessity became more evident to me through our conversations.
Bigotry is the cause and reason for Zionism.
I suggest you take some time to introspect.

 

[Anttech]

Zionism is about ensuring my nation's survival.

IMHO So is Islamism (or what Islamists believe). It was born out of the belief that Liberalism was "rotting" the core of Muslim nations, they wanted to create a Islamic state, where people would be able to live there lifes, under the guidance of the Koran.

You don't have to fall on Zionism to ensure Israel survival. Israel can survive without Zionism, it could survive as a democratic secular state. If it was this in practise, allowing Muslims to live along side Jews and Christians, without the borders, and fences you have now (perhaps called the The republic Of Israel and palestine). I think the support for idiotic ideas like the destruction of Israel would fall away to nothing.

But would anyone accept this, on either extreme.

 

[Yonoz]

IMHO So is Islamism (or what Islamists believe). It was born out of the belief that Liberalism was "rotting" the core of Muslim nations, they wanted to create a Islamic state, where people would be able to live there lifes, under the guidance of the Koran.

That's great - I'm all for that.
I do have a bit of a problem when states don't recognise my state's right of existence, export terrorism and seek nuclear weapons - whatever their religion, philosophy, ideology or favourite colour.

You don't have to fall on Zionism to ensure Israel survival. Israel can survive without Zionism, it could survive as a democratic secular state.

Israel is already a democratic state. It is quite secular considering its inhabitants. The only mere difference from other secular democratic states is that Israel is a home for Jewish people and as such it encourages Jews to come and reside here, and helps those who cannot achieve it - be it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Magic_Carpet_%28Yemen%29" . We are simply taking care of our own, I think we have every right to do so.
EDIT: Note I said:

To me, Zionism is about ensuring my nation's survival.

You are talking about the State of Israel - it is not one and the same as the Jewish nation.

If it was this in practise, allowing Muslims to live along side Jews and Christians, without the borders, and fences you have now (perhaps called the The republic Of Israel and palestine). I think the support for idiotic ideas like the destruction of Israel would fall away to nothing.

You may be right but can you offer a realistic path to arrive at such a state? I think it is a pipe dream today - even more than it was at the end of the 19th century, when it was actually attempted.

But would anyone accept this, on either extreme.

People vent their anger and pain. You cannot expect us to return overnight to a life of peaceful neighbouring. Steps must be taken by all parties to restore faith. That is why I am in Peace Now. It has nothing to do with my opinion of who is responsible and what a just solution means. It's in our every interest to seek peace and prosperity at home, the only thing keeping Israel back is the distrust that has settled after more than 100 years of Arab violence. We are capable of extraordinary feats when we believe it will ensure our safety, at peace just as much as at war. I don't think a 1-state solution is possible, but all the Palestinians need to do to finally live peacefully in their own independent state is to convince Israelis it will not endanger us.

 

[Anttech]

That's great - I'm all for that.
I do have a bit of a problem when states don't recognise my state's right of existence, export terrorism and seek nuclear weapons - whatever their religion, philosophy, ideology or favourite colour.

Even people who like Blue?

Seriously, your friends do the exact same as (I'll assume you mean Iran) Iran. So have a problem with them doing it as well, and we will have some progress.

Israel is already a democratic state. It is quite secular considering its inhabitants. The only mere difference from other secular democratic states is that Israel is a home for Jewish people and as such it encourages Jews to come and reside here, and helps those who cannot achieve it - be it Jews in Yemen suffering riots after the inception of Israel, Jews held by draconic emigration policies in the USSR or Jews caught in famine and civil war in Ethiopia. We are simply taking care of our own, I think we have every right to do so.

And islamist are helping there 'race' and Islam is as much a race as Judaism. I have a problem with any country who is inception is for only 1 'race' to call home.

You may be right but can you offer a realistic path to arrive at such a state? I think it is a pipe dream today - even more than it was at the end of the 19th century, when it was actually attempted.

Its a pipe dream because the leaders don't want it, it would erode their powerbase

 

[Anttech]

Note I said:
Quote:"To me, Zionism is about ensuring my nation's survival."
You are talking about the State of Israel - it is not one and the same as the Jewish nation.

Judaism is a set of beliefs its not a race. The same as Islam is a set of beliefs not a race. If your beliefs state that everyone who is a Jew is part of the same race, doesn't make it *actually* so. I am not part of the Orthodox Christian race because I am Greek. Nor can the 'Jewish' race be compared to Roma's or Europe, a race with no home so to say.

Its a religion, not a race!

 

[Yonoz]

Seriously, your friends do the exact same as (I'll assume you mean Iran) Iran. So have a problem with them doing it as well, and we will have some progress.

I have a problem with anyone commiting acts of terrorism. But the biggest criticism of Israel is that it is allowing people to build homes. How can I have more understanding for terrorists than for settlers? They're both obstacles to peace, but what a difference! I spent long hours manning booths, explaining to Israelis why we should be appeasing the Palestinians. It's become impossible now - every piece of land we've left since the Oslo Accords has become either a breeding ground or launch platform for terrorism attacks. Take a look at a http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/travel/dg/maps/cd/750x750_israel_m.gif" and imagine what Israelis fear after the latest attacks from Lebanon. That little coastal strip between the West Bank and the Mediterranean is Israel's metropolitan heart. The crudest rockets can be used there, because wherever they're aimed, there's a good chance they'll kill civilians. Israelis don't question the justness of the separation barrier simply because it's the only thing that has significantly minimized terrorist attacks. Of course, no one takes that into consideration when they judge it. It complements the honeypot effect of the settlements, detracting terrorist attacks inside the country - is it any wonder the separation barrier and settlers still find support?
We of the left hang onto every shred of hope in our attempts to promote peace. Unfortunately we have very little to work with.

And islamist are helping there 'race' and Islam is as much a race as Judaism.

Are they now? Do you think they're doing what is in the race, religion or nation's best interests? I think part of their problem is actually their divisiveness.

I have a problem with any country who is inception is for only 1 race to call home.

Israel is a home to people of different races.

Its a pipe dream because the leaders don't want it, it would erode their powerbase

Israel is a democracy. Its powerbase is the electorate.

 

[Yonoz]

Judaism is a set of beliefs its not a race.

Correct. I was talking about the Jewish nation, not Judaism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew" (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים, Yehudim; Yiddish: ייִדן, Yiden) are followers of Judaism or, more generally, members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation, or the Children of Israel), an ethno-religious group descended from the ancient Israelites and from converts who joined their religion.

The same as Islam is a set of beliefs not a race.

Very good!

If your beliefs state that everyone who is a Jew is part of the same race, doesn't make it *actually* so.

Have I ever mentioned a Jewish race?

I am not part of the Orthodox Christian race because I am Greek. Nor can the 'Jewish' race be compared to Roma's or Europe, a race with no home so to say.

The Jewish nation can be compared to other nations.

Its a religion, not a race!

5 points!

 

[Anttech]

Are they now? Do you think they're doing what is in the race, religion or nation's best interests? I think part of their problem is actually their divisiveness.

No, but neither do I think that the Zionists are doings what is in the nations best interests

 

[Anttech]

To me, Zionism is about ensuring my nation's survival.

You are talking about the State of Israel - it is not one and the same as the Jewish nation.

Correct. I was talking about the Jewish nation, not Judaism.

So what where we talking about then, I was talking about Israel the *Jewish* nation (Israel) when referring to Zionism, you on the other hand were talking about *Judaism*

Now you are talking about Israel (Jewish nation), but I was talking about Judaism.

This is called obfuscation if it was deliberate.

 

[Yonoz]

No, but neither do I think that the Zionists are doings what is in the nations best interests

Indeed, divisiveness is not a problem unique to the Muslim world. However, our divisiveness is a product of a healthy open public dialogue and less than healthy politics - in that sense we are no different from any other western nation. We are open to outside influence. The Muslim world is a closed, traditional society that favours fanaticism, and so far the only way we have gained Muslim nations' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect" is by defending ourselves.

Respect is an attitude of acknowledging the feelings and interests of another party in a relationship, and of treating as consequential for the self the helping or harming of the other. Though most commonly referring to interpersonal relationships, it can be used between animals, groups and institutions including countries. Respect does not necessarily imply deference, but a respectful attitude rules out unconsidered selfish behaviour. The concept of respect predates, and does not rely on, the existence of the concept of rights.

Respect is sometimes loosely used as a synonym for politeness or manners, though these are behaviours, whereas respect is an attitude. Intercultural differences in behaviours, self-perception and outward appearance may result in the unintentional appearance of disrespect.

Respect is the esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment.

Many movements have at different times claimed respect as the core element, including raver-culture, Islam and the United States Marine Corps.

 

[Anttech]

Indeed, divisiveness is not a problem unique to the Muslim world. However, our divisiveness is a product of a healthy open public dialogue and less than healthy politics - in that sense we are no different from any other western nation. We are open to outside influence. The Muslim world is a closed, traditional society that favours fanaticism, and so far the only way we have gained Muslim nations' respect is by defending ourselves.

Generalisation, and not a very *open* minded.There is a small sect who favour fanaticism.

Anyway what would you call and orthodox Jew rocking back and forth at the wailing wall, mumbling prayers under his breath? Fanatic or following his religion?

 

[Yonoz]

So what where we talking about then, I was talking about Israel the *Jewish* nation (Israel) when referring to Zionism, you on the other hand were talking about *Judaism*

Now you are talking about Israel (Jewish nation), but I was talking about Judaism.

This is called obfuscation if it was deliberate.

You need to distinguish between the State of Israel, Judaism, the Jewish nation (or peoples) and Zionism. I know it can be a little complex but such is reality.
When I said:

To me, Zionism is about ensuring my nation's survival.

I was referring to the Jewish nation. Your reply dealt solely with Judaism.