And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks

[sirs]

Sirs, you've got to get over this "Israel is evil" hyperbole. I don't think anyone here has suggested that. The point is that Israel does have apartheid policies in place. You scoff at it because of the name "apartheid" and the connotations that brings, but you've yet to provide any proof to the contrary.

I'm not, nor have I been trying to provide any evidence to the contrary of the harsher then fair immigration policies that Israel has put into place.  What I have been explaining is how things have gotten to this point, and it wasn't because of some arbitrary decision to be mean to Palestinians.  The "Israel is evil" hyperbole as you call it is nothing more than referening your consistent condemnation of everything Israel, while justifying & rationalizing why and how the Muslim population/Governments can't really do anything about militant Islam, including how what the Arab nations, outside of Jordan, are in applying just as harsh, if not harsher immigration policies, preventing Palestinians from becoming citizens of their countries.  That, you seem to support.  I mean, how much of a double standard is that?

Look at it this way. An citizen of Israel is being denied the right to live in a city based only on the fact that he's an Arab. He isn't too poor to purchase the land in the city. He's a physician and bizarrely enough he treats many of the people from the very city he wishes to move to. He has never been considered a threat by the Israeli Government. He isn't a practicing Muslim, though he comes from a Muslim family.  Now, how do you defend that?

"Defend" continues to be the wrong word.  "Justify" would be the closer, and even that doesn't quite reach the mark.  The point being that Israel can NOT allow the Palestinian people at this time, reintegrate within Israel, as Israeli citizens.  Their country would simply cease to exist, later, rather than sooner.  They might IF the Muslim community would come down hard on those who have pledged to destroy Israel in the name of Allah, and IF that threat could be neutralized.  So far I see no effort on your part to address that.  The only effort I see on your part is for Israel alone to change her ways, to put thesmelves at much greater risk, shrinking their defesnible borders, increasing the Muslim voting population within Israel, and then pray to God such acts aren't seen as a sign of weakness (which it would be) by those very folks who have pledged to see the death of Israel

And you can call it by another name, but it is apartheid, though not the worst example that Israel has.

I'll even pretend that it's apartheid as deplorably practiced by South Africa, as you so frequently like to pull in.  THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE THREAT TO ISRAEL.  Now, before you pull the Tee tactic of claiming how improbable it would be for these tiny terrorist cells to defeat the mighty Israel, the threat is in the constant insidious attacks on innocent civilians, referred to as monkeys by these Arabs.  The threat is the continued violence, in the name of Allah, to vanquish Israel from the region, regardless of how improbable you might think it is.  And if Iran gets its hands on a Nuke, that becomes exceedinly plausible.

 

So, while I am being saddled with 2000 years of anti-Semitic behavior and current "evil Israel" sentiments, please no that none of that is true.   It is telling that because I point out a serious injustice in the Israeli Government's treatment of Palestinians and her own citizens that I receive such a backlash.

No the "backlash" if any is in your completely ignoring the core problem in this debate.  I realize your belief is that the core problem is simply how the Israelis poorly treat the Palestinians.  I'm here to claim that that's simply a board that Militant Islam uses in justifying their killing of innocent women & children.  And if it wasn't that, it'd be something else.  The Koran provides them plenty of passages they can take verbatim in their agenda of killing the infidel, and it's little Israeli monkey.  That must be addressed 1st, IF we want to solve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict

[Henny]

it's not possible for mass condemnation of those radical elements within your own religion.  I do it all the time myself when its Christian radicals, and it's done adnauseum to Christianity, even when there's nothing radical being used as an example, while it's being bashed.  Point being the radical elements of Christianity are frequently marginalized and condemned for their actions that obviously are counter to what God would have us do.  It's not done to prevent their uprising, it's done because it's an effort by those radical elements to try and push some mutated version of Christianity, which most of us won't stand for.

See, that's the thing. Muslims do speak out - Muslims in America and Muslims worldwide, individually and in groups. I read about it and hear about it all the time. This is where my frustration lies in this part of the debate - what else should they do? Arm themselves and go blow the radicals up (becoming radicals themselves)?

In another thread, Js outlined something very important for any debate about how moderate Muslims handle the radical elements. The radicals are totally foreign to them! This is not one big, happy religion where everyone believes in the same thing and practices the religion the same way. That much should be obvious. At least try to make the comparison between differing sects of Christianity. How do you react when a sect, rather distant from your own, does something crazy? You speak out that they are damaging the image of Christianity. You say how horrible it is that they did what they did. Then you say, "But that's not my religion - I'm a ____________." Can you see what I'm talking about here?

But it's important to make a certain clarification. Al-Qaeda and groups like them are radical religious elements. Hamas and Hizbollah and other groups like them are political groups. Don't sit and hold your breath waiting for the moderate Muslims to condemn Hamas and Hizbollah based on religion, as they are not religious groups.

And everytime it's referenced how such an approach could actually have the greatest effect at marginalizing and demeaning the message of radical Islamists, and not involve military intervention at all, I keep getting explanations how I just don't know enough about Islam and its culture to understand how it's apparently not possible............brings us right back to the other option, military intervention.  Yet that approach is condemned by folks like yourself, because of the collateral damage effect.  To be honest, you're pretty much trying to tie our hands on this one.  You don't see that?

Diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy.

[sirs]

Muslims do speak out - Muslims in America and Muslims worldwide, individually and in groups. I read about it and hear about it all the time. This is where my frustration lies in this part of the debate - what else should they do? Arm themselves and go blow the radicals up (becoming radicals themselves)?

I'm being bluntly honest here Miss Henny, I don't see such supposed mass condemnation, and I sure as hell don't see the Muslim leaders in the Middle East, outside of Jordan, doing anything pro-active to take down those elements inside their own religion.  What I do see has been the frequent references by yourself and Js how these governments can't really do that.  They have to appease their populace in some way, and apparently coming down hard on militant Islam isn't an appropriate thing to do.  Much better and easier to bash Israel.  and yes, they (Moderate Muslims, especially in the middle east region), DO need to arm themselves, or at least help indentify names and locations of known terrorists & their cells, to their own Government authorities, and that THEY make the proactive move of taking them down.  That doesn't make them radical, in defending their religion & country from extremists bent on killing in the name of their religion.  It makes them saviors, and would demonstrate an obvious goal on their part, to take out a growing malignancy on this globe, using their religion to justify their barbaric acts.

But lets get even more basic.  Is it your position that "violence" (which I would refer to as military intervention) should not be used in dealing with militant Islam?  Are you saying that trying to take them down using force makes those individuals "radicals"??   Any and every military is simply a bunch of radicals?? 

But it's important to make a certain clarification. Al-Qaeda and groups like them are radical religious elements. Hamas and Hizbollah and other groups like them are political groups. Don't sit and hold your breath waiting for the moderate Muslims to condemn Hamas and Hizbollah based on religion, as they are not religious groups.

They still are using Islam as the foundation for their hatred of Israel, and why they need to be driven into th sea.  They still are using the same tactics, and are still targeting and killing innocent men, women & children, in populated areas, such as marketplaces, discos, buses, and schools.  And moderate Muslims aren't going to condemn THAT?  That's too bad then, as they've already won, since military intervention alone isn't going to stop it, and without that condemnation, Israel is justified in whatever they have to do to survice, which means maintaining the widest borders they can, building whatever walls they see fit, and maintaining that only Israelis/Jews can become citizens of Israel

And everytime it's referenced how such an approach could actually have the greatest effect at marginalizing and demeaning the message of radical Islamists, and not involve military intervention at all, I keep getting explanations how I just don't know enough about Islam and its culture to understand how it's apparently not possible............brings us right back to the other option, military intervention.  Yet that approach is condemned by folks like yourself, because of the collateral damage effect.  To be honest, you're pretty much trying to tie our hands on this one.  You don't see that?

Diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy.

Malignancy, Malignancy, Malignancy

[Henny]

I'm being bluntly honest here Miss Henny, I don't see such supposed mass condemnation, and I sure as hell don't see the Muslim leaders in the Middle East, outside of Jordan, doing anything pro-active to take down those elements inside their own religion.  What I do see has been the frequent references by yourself and Js how these governments can't really do that.  They have to appease their populace in some way, and apparently coming down hard on militant Islam isn't an appropriate thing to do. 

No Sirs, I think you misunderstood something way back in the thread. First, leaders of any nation DO have to appease their own citizens. Some do a fantastic balancing act of appeasing their own citizens AND taking down radical groups.

But lets get even more basic.  Is it your position that "violence" (which I would refer to as military intervention) should not be used in dealing with militant Islam?  Are you saying that trying to take them down using force makes those individuals "radicals"??   Any and every military is simply a bunch of radicals?? 

No. If you remember way back when, I strongly supported going into Afghanistan, and I still support our efforts there to take down the Taliban. However, pre-emptively going into Iran or Syria is foolish, IMO, just a I believed going into Iraq was foolish.

I also believe that as Hamas was voted into power in Palestine, it's time to talk to them too. It was a democratic election, after all.

They still are using Islam as the foundation for their hatred of Israel, and why they need to be driven into th sea.  They still are using the same tactics, and are still targeting and killing innocent men, women & children, in populated areas, such as marketplaces, discos, buses, and schools.  And moderate Muslims aren't going to condemn THAT?

I tried to tell you in another thread, Sirs, Muslims use Islam as the foundation to buy saran wrap and cabbage. If you want condemnation, rather than yelling at the whole Islamic world - which makes no sense at all - how about asking for the condemnation from where it belongs? Ask for condemnation of Hamas from the MODERATE PALESTINIANS. Ask for the condemnation of Hizbollah from the MODERATE LEBANESE. Could you just let go of Islam for a minute and remember that these are groups and people with different political perspectives and needs?

[sirs]

I think you misunderstood something way back in the thread. First, leaders of any nation DO have to appease their own citizens. Some do a fantastic balancing act of appeasing their own citizens AND taking down radical groups.

I'm seeing alot of the former, and pretty much nothing of the latter, outside of certain efforts being made by Jordan.  Nothing along the lines of what's necessary, I'm afraid.  I sure wish you could post some links to examples outside of Jordan who are actively trying to take down raidcal militant Islamic groups

But lets get even more basic.  Is it your position that "violence" (which I would refer to as military intervention) should not be used in dealing with militant Islam?  Are you saying that trying to take them down using force makes those individuals "radicals"??   Any and every military is simply a bunch of radicals?? 

No. If you remember way back when, I strongly supported going into Afghanistan, and I still support our efforts there to take down the Taliban. However, pre-emptively going into Iran or Syria is foolish, IMO, just a I believed going into Iraq was foolish.

OK, that good to hear.  Fair enough.  And for the record I see no reason to go into Iran or Syria either at this time, especially if it's predicated on what all the "intel is telling us".  Given their last debacle with the slam dunk-like proclamations, I'm going to have to see & hear in much better detail and corroboration to support any pre-emptive invasions for either of those 2 countries.  But to reference my original question then, why would you consider it "radical" if moderate Muslims armed and took action against those who are killing women and children, in the name of their religion?

I also believe that as Hamas was voted into power in Palestine, it's time to talk to them too. It was a democratic election, after all.

Of course it was democratic.  The people got what they wanted, a hateful organization bent on seeing the destruction of Israel.  I see no reason to talk with them either, same as Syria and Iran.  I already know what they want.  It's going to have to be the people themselves (Palestinians, Lebanese, Arabs, Persians, etc.) to deal with their mistake.  You've made it clear to me that Israel is absolutely within it's reason to continue it's current policies and borders, since no one else in the Muslim world is going to do anything to denounce, condemn or take any action against the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, and other forms of Islamofascists

Muslims use Islam as the foundation to buy saran wrap and cabbage. If you want condemnation, rather than yelling at the whole Islamic world - which makes no sense at all - how about asking for the condemnation from where it belongs? Ask for condemnation of Hamas from the MODERATE PALESTINIANS. Ask for the condemnation of Hizbollah from the MODERATE LEBANESE. Could you just let go of Islam for a minute and remember that these are groups and people with different political perspectives and needs?

I'm not yelling at the whole Muslim world, I'm waiting to see the Muslim world yell at those who have hijacked their religion.  Murdering in the name of Allah is murdering in the name of Allah.  If some radical Christian were to blow up an abortion clinic, killing hundreds of men, women, and even children, because God told him to do so, you're telling me that only Christians can rightly condemn him?  What if he were Protestant, only Protestant Christians could denounce his actions, in the name of their God?  Of course not.  One more time, regardless if you see Hamas and Hezbollah as more political vs religious, they use the religion of Islam to justify their acts of murder.  How that doesn't qualify in your mind that they not be condemned by moderate Muslims around the world, and especially by those in the region, is beyond me

[_JS]

One more thing, JS, you seem to be emboldened by, if not frankly in the thrall of, Jimmy Carter's ill-conceived, politically tone-deaf embrace of the apartheid motif to describe Israel's policy toward the Palestinians, which de-emphasizes security concerns almost to the vanishing point while highlighting inflammatory aspects of the policy, which no one defends but which must be addressed in a security-conscious framework, or not at all. And you and Carter, the choirboys of the modern conscience, or so you would have it, dovetail your sentiments as if on cue with the true evil geniuses of this tableau, Nasrallah, Ahmadinejad et al. Is there a Biblical passage for such brazen righteousness, not in service of transcendent justice but rather a petty propriety?

Domer, I considered it apartheid before Jimmy Carter wrote the passage in his book. Also, considering Carter's support of governments, like that of El Salvador, who murdered priests and nuns as well as civilians, I would hardly consider us allies in some great cause.

All I am doing is pointing out what I consider to be a horribly destructive policy. I do believe it will harm Israel in the long term. I don't consider myself a "choirboy of modern conscience" and no I'm not receiving coded messages from the "evil genuises" in Hezbollah or Iran.

By the way, Israel's Supreme Court agreed with me in the case of the Arab man who wished to live in a city designated only for non-Arab Jews. The problem is that the JNF (which holds land and only leases it to Jews) will not comply with the Supreme Court's decision. It is currently an impasse.

I don't know what you and Sirs want from me. I'm going to call apartheid exactly what it is when I see it, no matter what government is behind it. That does not mean that I believe everything done by the Israeli Government or the Israeli people is bad by any means. In fact, I find Israel to be a remarkable land and the Jewish people there to have made some amazing strides. The kibbutzim are one of my favourite examples and came from the Russian Jews (and Romanian as well) who were treated miserably by Imperial Russia. They turned the land into amazingly arable and productive agricultural use.

You both seem to believe that these apartheid policies are very old, they are not. They haven't been heavily enforced until recently when Likud became very strong, especially when Bibi Netanyahu and Sharon took over. You all talk about terrorism and its evils, did you know that Likud celebrates the anniversary of the King David Hotel bombing every year? What message does that send to potential terrorists?

You seem very irate Domer, but I have yet to see a very logical reason as to why.

[Henny]

We broke the record for replies and views several posts ago. Imagine, all that typing and no one can see another perspective any more clearly than when we started.

[sirs]

We broke the record for replies and views several posts ago. Imagine, all that typing and no one can see another perspective any more clearly than when we started.

I beg to differ.  I have a greater concept of the harsh and unfair practices/policies implimented by Israel, than I had before.  I also have a better understanding of the history involved starting in '47, including the Suez war, the 6-day war, and a better perspective of how the modern incarnation of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict came to be.  I don't know about you Miss Henny, but I have a better appreciation for other perspectives now.  Does it mean it's changed my mind on core principles?  Is that what you're really trying to reference?

And cudos to all involved in the record break         Everyone have a great day, as I'm off to work, and you keep safe Miss Henny

[_JS]

I'm seeing alot of the former, and pretty much nothing of the latter, outside of certain efforts being made by Jordan.  Nothing along the lines of what's necessary, I'm afraid.  I sure wish you could post some links to examples outside of Jordan who are actively trying to take down raidcal militant Islamic groups

Just a quick response here.

Egypt, Syria, Turkey, and even Iraq fought Islamic militants for decades. The first three still fight Islamic militants everyday and have done so for years.

For example, you can look up the 2005 election in Egypt and see the mass arrests of Muslim Brotherhood members. The elder Assad was well known for putting down an insurrection of militant Islamists who opposed secular rule and nearly assasinated him in Mali.

One reason you likely don't read about Turkey, Egypt, and Syria's efforts is that they aren't always very transparent and certainly are not democratic. Egypt is probably the most transparent of the three and had mass protests from university students and Europeans in Egypt when they made the mass arrests of Muslim Brotherhood members during the 2005 elections (please look it up).

Turkey has to be cautious with their crack down on militant Islam because of their desire to join the European Union, which has strong demands to follow human rights (in fact there is a human rights charter). Turkey is already considered very weak in the area of human rights and militant Islam is known to be a problem there.

Syria is just not a transparent nation and never has been. When the militant Isalm insurgency took place the response was overhwelming. The Government didn't round up and arrest those responsible. They didn't seize people, they didn't send in soldiers and declare martial law. No. They leveled the section of Hama, the city where the insurrection took place. If you were a resident and not involved in militant Islam - you were just SOL. The bombed it and shelled it with artillery. Thousands of people died. There were more arrests and such made afterwards, but the original retribution was enough to put off such an organised insurrection for quite some time.

I'd be careful to suggest that those nations aren't very strongly putting down radical Islam, it is in their own self-interest.

Why do they not care or even support the political terrorists in Israel?

Many reasons I'd suggest. Perhaps one is the very same reason many Americans supported the War in Iraq in 2004 and includes President George W. Bush: better to have terrorists over there than over here

[domer]

Try this for succinct and logical, JS: in the wake of growing tensions in the Middle East, either quite directly or more indirectly implicating Israel -- Irani saber-rattling in a nuclear mode, with outright condemnations and threats issuing from the president; the Hezbollah War; Hamas's ascendancy; the general antipathy generated by the Iraq War; the passionate hatred fostered by violent, radical Islam -- it is the height of recklessness to emphasize "apartheid" at this time without consistently and effectively balancing one's perspective with the good and right that Israel brings to the table, as you have recently begun to do as an afterthought.

[Plane]

We broke the record for replies and views several posts ago. Imagine, all that typing and no one can see another perspective any more clearly than when we started.

   Don't be discouraged and don't feel compelled to continue either.

    The education of partizens is a slow process , if you are making the water availible it isn't your fault if the horse doesn't drink it.

    Are you learning anything usefull?

[_JS]

...it is the height of recklessness to emphasize "apartheid" at this time without consistently and effectively balancing one's perspective with the good and right that Israel brings to the table, as you have recently begun to do as an afterthought.

It isn't particularly fair or logical to automatically assume that because I dislike one aspect of Israeli political policy, that I must therefore harbor some intense hatred for Israel and/or the Jewish people.

How's that for brevity?

[domer]

You doth protest too much. My comments were not directed to your hatred but your recklessness.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Carter is right to call the private Jews-only highways, the tedious checkpoints and the huge walls to keep Palestinians out of ancestral homeland even to sweep the damned streets apartheid. It exactly and precisely apartheid.

Somehow, if Israel is not a country in which a majority of the people are Jewish, then Israel ceases to be.

Most Englishmen, Welshmen and Scots do not attend the Church of England or the Church of Scotland or even believe in its tenets. Does this mean that there is no United Kingdom?

Most Swedes do not attend the Lutheran Church. Does this mean that Sweden does not exist?

The actual fact is that the UK and the Swedes have OUTGROWN religion. Linking religion to the state is one of the very very WORST ideas that the human race has ever thought up, and it is no surprise that it began in the Middle East (especially in Egypt).

What Israel needs to do is GROW UP, and so to the Muslims. Israels other problem is that it is a colonial state founded after colonies are obsolete.

[_JS]

Oh you've already called me anti-Semitic in this great debate once Domer.

I don't consider my timing reckless either. That would once again give rational excuse to apartheid policies. You'd be providing conditional variables under which such injustice was excusable. Many nations did the same thing with their foreign policy towards South Africa. The United States did the same thing with its policies towards El Salvador.

There is no "proper time" for apartheid Domer. I could give a damn less what political garbage the president of Iran makes out of it. If it wasn't this he would find something else. Why give him real political ammunition?