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

[_JS]

So, JS, let me see if I have your position clear, please. You believe that if they were to try to live in peace with thier neighbors while also allowing Arabs living within thier borders equal treatement in all respects ,then all would be well, namely they would not be attacked from in or out?

Well, I cannot make any guarantees from outside but I'd wager that Israel faces no real opposition from the neighboring nations. Only Egypt is a real threat in terms of military power and I'm guessing that we wouldn't provide as much foreign aid and military equipment to Egypt as we do if we didn't believe that they weren't going to continue to honor the peace agreement with Israel (which has remained intact since 1973). Jordan recognizes Israel's right to exist and doesn't have the military capability to harm them anyway. They have not attacked since 1973 either. Only Syria remains and Israel fighting a one-front war with Syria is no contest. Lebanon is a chaotic nation (and not Arab), it needs to be allowed to be established as a full state and it poses no real threat to Israel either.

And yes. I am saying that a truly democratic Israel that gives full rights to all of her citizens and spreads the wealth more evenly instead of having an impoverished community and a well-to-do community would see far less violence than it does today. Why wouldn't it? It is hard for fringe groups to preach about injustice and inhumanity when those elements are missing. Would there be far-right militant Islamic and militant Jewish groups? Probably. But if real equality in the justice system was established those groups would fall away and be pushed out by mainstream society.

If you think about other places that have seen political violence and sectarian violence, there were underlying issues of real injustice and civil rights problems. Northern Ireland, the Southern United States, South Africa, Rhodesia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Argentina, Chile, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Lithuania, Honduras, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran...I can go on and on. The choice is clear - you can crush it (El Salvador, Hungary) but how long will it work? Or you can change and become a stronger democracy (United States, Northern Ireland - I hope).

[domer]

Neither I nor most Israelis, I would venture, have any stake whatsoever in repressive tactics serving a containment strategy beyond what is absolutely needed for real security. But peace poised precariously among hostile and threatening neighbors, historically and potentially, with a sworn terrorist enemy, which denies Israel's very right to exist, in the seat of power (or power-sharing) in the contiguous occupied territories, is not a formula upon which a wise man can base letting down his guard.

[sirs]

If you note, it seems he took that actions, specifically to prevent Israel from using it.

You mean using an Egyptian canal and waterway? Perish the thought. Besides that was hardly the only reason..

Yea, there was also the Fedayeen attacks.  But that just gets tossed aside as well.  Gee Js, your starting to sound a tad like Tee, ignoring anything and everything that may go against how bad Israel is supposed to be.   And again, last I checked the UN said what Egypt did in specifically targeting & blocking Israeli vessels was illegal, and a definate provocation

In any case, UN 17 concluded that they were illegally blocking Israeli transit

You do not want to get into United Nations resolutions and who broke what and when, Sirs. Besides, Nasser put his nation before the United Nations, I thought you right-wingers ate that stuff up

Oh, I'm not "getting into it", simply pointing out a fact, before the UN became so overtly anti-semetic and uncredible

I referenced that Isreal largely RESPONDS to attacks, & that outside of the one attack on Iraq's Nuclear facility was the only really pre-emptive action taken.

And I demonstrated that there have been four major wars between 1948 and 1973. Israel used preemptive action in two of them. The Arabs used preemptive action in two of them. Justifications and rationalizations abound and are the tools of apologists, of which I'm not one for either side.

Well, could have fooled me, as you sure do seem to be NOT on the Israeli side of anything.  Actions they take justified in doing so are simply pfffft away, with the proclaimation that "See, they pre-emptively attacked!!".  All the while ignoring what faciitated the Arab neighbors to do what they did vs Israel responding to what the Arabs were doing & about to do.  In your book, it's all a wash.  And you try to call me ignorant of history   

This is apartheid. There are towns within Israel where race and religion determine who may live there. There are roads in Israel and in Palestinian territories where Palestinians are not allowed to drive. There are neighborhoods and homes destroyed all the time by Israeli armored bulldozers. There have been peaceful protesters killed, including Americans, by the Israelis.....I have no problem with Israel existing. I have a lot of problems with apartheid and treating your fellow man like dirt. This is systematic and anti-democratic action on the part of the Government of Israel. It isn't about "existing" it is about doing what is right. 

1 last time, Israel is no saint.  Some of what Israel has done, and some of their policies they've implimented against Palestinians are indeed unfair and harsh.  WHEN the Arab nations, besides just Jordan and a token of Egypt, come out and publically condemn the acts of Hamas and other militant Islamists that permeate Syria, Iran, and other nearby locations, AND take specific actions to take down such organized terrorist groups, and these other Arab nations publically recognize Israel's right to exist, right where it is, THEN we can start condemning Israel for their unfair immigration practices, that they've had to adopt in order to survive the insidious attacks brought to them, since '48.  Ball in THEIR court

[_JS]

That's right.

I'm just like Tee (whatever that means) and Israel is fully justified to carry on apartheid practices.

After all, it is the actions that take place on pieces of paper in Ducat, Tehran, Baghdad, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Tripoli, Abu Dhabi, Damascus, and Rabat that matter more than the actual human beings who are being destroyed.

You've both convinced me, Domer and Sirs.

I won't leave without addressing one thing though. Sirs, look at your final statement. It is completely manichean and that is the whole problem. This is not one-sided. This isn't a sports analogy. All sides have to work on a solution or there will be none.

Which seems just fine with the two of you.

[sirs]

That's right.  I'm just like Tee and Israel is fully justified to carry on apartheid practices.

Did I say "fully"?  No.  So I'd appreciate you not misrepresenting my position Js.  I thank you in advance

Sirs, look at your final statement. It is completely manichean and that is the whole problem. This is not one-sided.

I never said it was.  I said it needed to start from the end that's causing the other end of the problem.  The Israelis didn't just decide to impose harsh policies out of the blue.  It's been insidious and progressive, as a result of the actions taken upon upon them by the Arab neighbors.  Until that part of the equation is dealt with, I'm not going to condemn Israel for what you want to perceive as pure apartheid.  That accomplishes nothing but making Israel weaker.  So, 1 more time, don't misrepresent my positon that since I support the right of Israel to exist, I must therefor believe that Israel is all white, and Arabs are all in black hats.  From a medical analogy, your Israeli perceive apartheid is a symptom of the bigger problem, Israel's right to exist, and the Disease process of the majority of the Arab region, Iran included, who have pledged that not to be the case.  To deal with the symptoms, you have to target the primary problem 1st.  Thus my "ball in their court" reference, since that's the primary problem (read: NOT the only and NOT that Israel is pure a snow)

[Plane]

"Now, if this were a liberal western democracy the issue of seizing land and allowing this other community to live in poverty and deprivation would not be an issue. Purely from a economics standpoint as a Socialist or a Capitalist there would be no reason to want so many people to live such an impoverished life. It is bad economics."

It certainly is bad economics ,but you have to be alive to enjoy good economics.

The Indefaddath was killing enough people to be seriously irritateing so lots of Palestinians have lost their jobs and educational oppurtunitys so that they can live behind a wall.

This is not good for them , but as a matter of pride very few of them can call the Indeffddath a bad idea.

All the jobs the Palestinians used to have in Tel Aivive are now held by Turks.


There are no potential solutions that are going to work during an Indefadath , or soon after one.

[_JS]

Did I say "fully"?  No.

Enough that you seem to have no real problem with it. As I said long ago in this discussion, you're the white anglo-liberal in South Africa. You might frown a little at the poor blacks, but it doesn't really affect you any. You'd still vote for the Nationalists when election day came around.

I never said it was.

You most certainly did. I suggest you re-read your statements, even your last paragraph of where you begin with "Israel is no saint" and end with "ball in their court", which by the way is a sports metaphor.

The Indefaddath was killing enough people to be seriously irritateing so lots of Palestinians have lost their jobs and educational oppurtunitys so that they can live behind a wall.

That's not quite a fair sentence Plane. A lot of Palestinians were forced to live behind a wall, even forced to move behind the wall that had absolutely nothing to do with the intifada and just want to live a normal life. Despite popular myth, not all Palestinians are extremist Muslims (as I've pointed out, not all of them are Muslim at all, many are Christians, Druze, and amazingly even a few Jews).

Believe it or not, not all Catholics in Northern Ireland were Republicans, and not all those who supported unification with Ireland (nationalists) were terrorists. Some were even Protestants. Some of this oversimplification needs to stop, and that is a very sad part of Israel's apartheid policies. A lot of good people are left in privation.

[Plane]

Did I say "fully"?  No.

Enough that you seem to have no real problem with it. As I said long ago in this discussion, you're the white anglo-liberal in South Africa. You might frown a little at the poor blacks, but it doesn't really affect you any. You'd still vote for the Nationalists when election day came around.

I never said it was.

You most certainly did. I suggest you re-read your statements, even your last paragraph of where you begin with "Israel is no saint" and end with "ball in their court", which by the way is a sports metaphor.

The Indefaddath was killing enough people to be seriously irritateing so lots of Palestinians have lost their jobs and educational oppurtunitys so that they can live behind a wall.

That's not quite a fair sentence Plane. A lot of Palestinians were forced to live behind a wall, even forced to move behind the wall that had absolutely nothing to do with the intifada and just want to live a normal life. Despite popular myth, not all Palestinians are extremist Muslims (as I've pointed out, not all of them are Muslim at all, many are Christians, Druze, and amazingly even a few Jews).

Believe it or not, not all Catholics in Northern Ireland were Republicans, and not all those who supported unification with Ireland (nationalists) were terrorists. Some were even Protestants. Some of this oversimplification needs to stop, and that is a very sad part of Israel's apartheid policies. A lot of good people are left in privation.

    The Paestinians willing to blow themselves up amount to enough to build the walls , the rest seem to be intimidated or supportive , is your suggestion for dealing with indefadath to only inconveinience the guilty?
     That would be good for me too ,know how to do it?

[sirs]

Did I say "fully"?  No.

Enough that you seem to have no real problem with it.

Not quite, enough that I comprehend why they've done what they've done.  Remember I don't buy this pure comparable apartheid you've bought into, regardless of how many times or how loudly you keep saying it is.  

As I said long ago in this discussion, you're the white anglo-liberal in South Africa. You might frown a little at the poor blacks, but it doesn't really affect you any. You'd still vote for the Nationalists when election day came around.

Yea, you're right there Js, ...call me a liberal will yas.      Seriously though, I'd definately vote for the right for Israel to exist, right where it is, vs not, since that is indeed the foundation to my position.

I never said it was.

You most certainly did. I suggest you re-read your statements, even your last paragraph of where you begin with "Israel is no saint" and end with "ball in their court", which by the way is a sports metaphor.

A sports metaphor does not make it a sports analogy.  I thought my bringing in the medical analogy would help you out on that.  Apparently not.  Now, care to address THAT analogy, the one I'm ACTUALLY making vs the sports analogy you're trying to make this into?  "ball in their court", continues to simply reference where this needs to start, which does NOT equate that Israel is absolved of doing anything in return.  Should I have said "Scapel in their hands"?  That would have been more accurate, but less commonly understood

As I've said in the past, the "Right of return" is an absolute non-starter until the Arab mindset is altered, specifically how the Muslim population needs to condemn and act in taking out those mutated elements of Islam, bent on not just seeing the destruction of Israel, but have an active global goal of a Muslim led world, where you are either Muslim, have converted, are subjugated to it, or are killed.

[_JS]

Not quite, enough that I comprehend why they've done what they've done.  Remember I don't but this pure comparable apartheid you've bought into, regardless of how many times or how loudly you keep saying it is.

Of course you don't "buy it", you support it. The fact that you can't see the Israeli Government creating a tiered class of citizenry and separating communities based on race and/or religion is beyond me Sirs. I mean, I can lead a horse to water but I can't make him drink the damned stuff. The Israeli Government uses the Hebrew name for it as opposed to the Afrikaaner, would that make you feel better?

Go to Katzir and talk with mayor Sandrov. He talks about "high walls make good neighbors" and "it is a question of social suitability." That's how he defends the fact that his little town of Katzir won't allow Israeli Arabs to live there. You say it isn't apartheid, well you make up a nice little word for it, or a phrase like Sandrov has done.

Cover it in silk, dash it with saffron, spray it with expensive perfume from Paris - it still stinks like Apartheid. You don't have to have the "White Beach Only" signs to have apartheid policies Sirs.

Yea, you're right there Js, ...call me a liberal will yas.

Anglo-liberals in South Africa were a curious breed. Different from the Dutch Afrikaaners. It doesn't have the same peculiar meaning as "liberal" does in the United States.

Seriously though, I'd definately vote for the right for Israel to exist, right where it is, vs not, since that is indeed the foundation to my position.

I vote for loving your neighbor and your enemies. I vote for human dignity. I vote for not pushing your fellow man into homelands of privation. I vote for not judging men and women based only on their race, religion, or beliefs. I vote for not having 93% of the land reserved for people of a specific religion.

As I've said in the past, the "Right of return" is an absolute non-starter until the Arab mindset is altered...

Yet you discuss UN resolutions that were passed "before the UN became so overtly anti-semetic and uncredible." Did you know the UN passed a resolution calling for the right of return for Palestinians in 1948 (after the war)? Did you know that they did so even after an Israeli terrorist murdered UN mediator Folke Bernadotte?

But you think I'm just talking about the Palestinians that Israel refuses to acknowledge as citizens. I'm also talking about Israeli Arabs who are treated as second or third class citizens. Though they have it slightly better than the Palestinians (who basically have no rights) the Israeli Arabs have a difficult time as well (see my example of Katzir above).

Your medical analogy is a misdiagnoses. Why? It makes an assumption that Israel's existance is in danger in reality because other nations have not acknowledged it on paper. It is not. Israel exists. It is a very powerful nation and as I've explained many times, it is a popular myth that it is a land of underdogs who barely cling to their territory and are constantly invaded by massive Arab armies hellbent on pushing the lovable Jews into the Mediterranean Sea.

This isn't an army of grunting orcs waiting outside of Frodo's shire.

The nation's that refuse to recognize Israel only do so because of internal political reasons (i.e. they don't want to have to deal with religious nutter groups as Egypt and Turkey constantly struggle with). They aren't idiots, they know Israel exists and they can't do anything about it.

specifically how the Muslim population needs to condemn and act in taking out those mutated elements of Islam

No. Two different arguments. Israel is seen as a political issue by most Muslims. While none that I know support violence, they certainly don't support the way the Palestinian people have been treated.

That is completely different from the very, very tiny group of radical militant Islam that you speak of. And what exactly do you want "the Muslim population" to do?

[_JS]

   The Paestinians willing to blow themselves up amount to enough to build the walls , the rest seem to be intimidated or supportive , is your suggestion for dealing with indefadath to only inconveinience the guilty?
     That would be good for me too ,know how to do it?

Take the more difficult road and work very hard on reaching a peace agreement that all sides can live with. It has generally worked in Northern Ireland, at least thus far in recent history. It has been far more succesful than any of the walls they built in Belfast.

[Plane]

   The Paestinians willing to blow themselves up amount to enough to build the walls , the rest seem to be intimidated or supportive , is your suggestion for dealing with indefadath to only inconveinience the guilty?
     That would be good for me too ,know how to do it?

Take the more difficult road and work very hard on reaching a peace agreement that all sides can live with. It has generally worked in Northern Ireland, at least thus far in recent history. It has been far more succesful than any of the walls they built in Belfast.

It worked for the survivors of three centurys of "troubbles".

If there were no violent people on either side the rest of them would have a much easyer time comeing to compromise solutions.

But if you hate compromises you might just be violent so that compromises cannot work.

[sirs]

Not quite, enough that I comprehend why they've done what they've done.  Remember I don't but this pure comparable apartheid you've bought into, regardless of how many times or how loudly you keep saying it is.

Of course you don't "buy it", you support it.

No I don't support your version of what is. 

Go to Katzir and talk with mayor Sandrov. He talks about "high walls make good neighbors" and "it is a question of social suitability." That's how he defends the fact that his little town of Katzir won't allow Israeli Arabs to live there. You say it isn't apartheid, well you make up a nice little word for it, or a phrase like Sandrov has done.

I've got a better idea.  Go to Tehran and talk to the Iranian president.  He talks about destroying Israel, and he talks about his country's right to have Nuclear weapons/  You seem to continue to gloss right over what has led to israel's harsh policies.  Hint, it wasn't some epiphamy where they all of a sudden said, "let's get really mean to the Palestinians"  Again, root cause...root cause, not the sypmtoms

Seriously though, I'd definately vote for the right for Israel to exist, right where it is, vs not, since that is indeed the foundation to my position.

I vote for loving your neighbor and your enemies. I vote for human dignity. I vote for not pushing your fellow man into homelands of privation. I vote for not judging men and women based only on their race, religion, or beliefs. I vote for not having 93% of the land reserved for people of a specific religion.

Good for you.  Now, can we get the Arab neighbors to buy into that?  When the majority come around to my side, I'll then endeavor to come over to yours.

As I've said in the past, the "Right of return" is an absolute non-starter until the Arab mindset is altered...

Yet you discuss UN resolutions that were passed "before the UN became so overtly anti-semetic and uncredible." Did you know the UN passed a resolution calling for the right of return for Palestinians in 1948 (after the war)? Did you know that they did so even after an Israeli terrorist murdered UN mediator Folke Bernadotte?

Yea.........and?

Your medical analogy is a misdiagnoses. Why? It makes an assumption that Israel's existance is in danger in reality because other nations have not acknowledged it on paper. It is not. Israel exists. It is a very powerful nation and as I've explained many times, it is a popular myth that it is a land of underdogs who barely cling to their territory and are constantly invaded by massive Arab armies hellbent on pushing the lovable Jews into the Mediterranean Sea.

Some of our smallest killers are viruses.  Malignancies generally start out microscopic, and despite our massively superior immune system, we sometimes die to the smallest of killers. 

AlQeada and other like organizations are also pretty small compared to the U.S.  A fraction of our population, and highly improbable of carrying out their agenda of converting, subjugating, or killing every non-Muslim, starting with Western Civilization.  Yet the mindset, driven by religious fervor, and the belief that even in killing themselves, as long as they kills hundreds, if not thousands of innocents, they bring such an agenda closer to what they believe is absolutely inevitable, requires us to deal with them right here, right now.  Israel is no different.  The muslim population massively out-numbers Israel.  Even if Israel countered a nuclear strike with their own nukes, taking out Tehran, and other select targets, still would leave millions of Muslims perfectly intact, while TelAviv and perhaps even Jeruselem, with the vast majority of Israel largely in complete ruin.  I recall the President of Iran implying precisely that scenario.  And it's driven by this religious hatred to anything not Muslim, with Israel considered monkeys and non-citizens

The threat is real Js, and my diagnosis is dead on.  Just because Israel is strong doesn't make the threat any less.  If Israel were the size of Iran, MAYBE, just maybe you might have a point.  Israel however is a mere sliver of land.  And yet even on that sliver, they're hated, and folks like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the ideolgy behind militant islam will not stop until Israel ceases to exist, regardles of how strong Israel is

The nation's that refuse to recognize Israel only do so because of internal political reasons. They aren't idiots, they know Israel exists and they can't do anything about it.

Boy, how convenient.  So bascially you're saying they don't have to do anything.  That all this rests on Israel.  Amazing.  Sad, but amazing.  So, what's Israel supposed to do, that will also guarantee their security and remove the threat of Terrorist attacks??

specifically how the Muslim population needs to condemn and act in taking out those mutated elements of Islam

And what exactly do you want "the Muslim population" to do?

I thought I just answered it in the quote you provided.  You want specifics?

[domer]

I suppose it's both easy and without cost to judge someone else's risk from a far away airy-fairy land, an idealized place shorn of history and focused on just one type of oppressed to the exclusion of another type where very survival among a mass of hostiles is the issue. Apparently embracing a notion of Christian sacrifice which should have died with Christ Himself, JS inveighs for a unilateral Israeli "disarmament," read: subjection to ever-increased vulnerability, in the hope that sworn enemies dedicated to its destruction will share in the grand Kumbaya moment and transform a seat of hatred into a sea of tranquillity. Show me, JS, show me how this would work, and explain to me how it can be a rational substitute for a gradual, long-term process of conflict resolution and reconciliation, based on the principle of verify first, then trust.

[Henny]

I swore I was going to leave this topic alone, but I simply can't. I have to address a couple of things here.

You seem to continue to gloss right over what has led to israel's harsh policies...

And you continue to gloss over what caused the Palestinians to be pissed off in the first place.

I vote for loving your neighbor and your enemies. I vote for human dignity. I vote for not pushing your fellow man into homelands of privation. I vote for not judging men and women based only on their race, religion, or beliefs. I vote for not having 93% of the land reserved for people of a specific religion.

Good for you.  Now, can we get the Arab neighbors to buy into that?  When the majority come around to my side, I'll then endeavor to come over to yours.

See Sirs, you can't "vote" for that - no one can. Because even if the Palestinians start behaving themselves and the walls come down and the Israelis and the Palestinians are kissing and hugging in reconciliation, you will never get that. Israel, by Israeli law, only allows Jews to be citizens. And some Arab Jews don't even get that (the Jews that lived in the region before 1948).

Yet you discuss UN resolutions that were passed "before the UN became so overtly anti-semetic and uncredible." Did you know the UN passed a resolution calling for the right of return for Palestinians in 1948 (after the war)? Did you know that they did so even after an Israeli terrorist murdered UN mediator Folke Bernadotte? [/color]

Yea.........and?

What do you mean with "Yea... and?" JS was refuting your statement that the UN suddenly became "overtly anti-semitic and uncredible." Perhaps more correctly put, they recognized Palestinian rights a long, long time ago. (In your language that means they've been anti-semitic for a long time.)

AlQeada and other like organizations are also pretty small compared to the U.S.  A fraction of our population, and highly improbable of carrying out their agenda of converting, subjugating, or killing every non-Muslim, starting with Western Civilization.  Yet the mindset, driven by religious fervor, and the belief that even in killing themselves, as long as they kills hundreds, if not thousands of innocents, they bring such an agenda closer to what they believe is absolutely inevitable, requires us to deal with them right here, right now. 

You know, I've been reading this line of crap in a few threads recently. What makes you think they want to convert us and subjugate us? First things first... they DON'T WANT US. They are fighting Western interference in the Middle East and interference with the Muslim people. But really, converting us is not an issue. I suppose this is the line of rhetoric used to excite conservative Americans... "They are a threat to our "Christian nation."

The nation's that refuse to recognize Israel only do so because of internal political reasons. They aren't idiots, they know Israel exists and they can't do anything about it.

Boy, how convenient.  So bascially you're saying they don't have to do anything.  That all this rests on Israel.  Amazing.  Sad, but amazing.  So, what's Israel supposed to do, that will also guarantee their security and remove the threat of Terrorist attacks??

No, this is domestic policy that is even recognized by the U.S. The leaders of countries that are sympathetic to Israel, for example, still have to appease their own people or they risk revolution and a severe worsening of the problems in the Middle East. It is a balance they have to play out, recognizing the opinions of their own people while trying to keep the peace.