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

[sirs]

<<Tee advocates unilateral Israeli action & pull back, and then pray the killings of Israelis by terrorists and other Islamofascists, which even Tee concedes is likely to happen, having embolden the terrorists, I guess is not so bad, that Israel can absorb those deaths.>>

I don't believe I recommended prayer as a means of keeping down the killing of Israelis by "terrorists," and like most of your delusional bullshit, I'm sure you have no hope in hell of substantiating what you say I said. 

Then what do you expect?  You actually already answered that question.  You expect there to be more violence, and more killing of Israelis, with the embolden position affored the terrorists, with the pull out.  Yea, you say "we don't know what'll happen", but you've already conceded that realistically it's likley there would be. 

What is Israel supposed to do, outside of praying, given your position of unilateral pulling back??  If you call on aggressively defending themselves & fighting back, then you're a hypopcrite, since that's precisely what they're doing now, they simply have more defensible positions.  So, then we're right back to square 1

[Michael Tee]

<<Then what do you expect?  You actually already answered that question.  You expect there to be more violence, and more killing of Israelis, with the embolden position affored the terrorists, with the pull out.  >>

No, I said if the pull-out were conducted now by the present Israeli leadership, it would be taken as evidence of weakness by most Arabs.  This could result in more attacks but it could also result in stronger defences because the IDF has less territory to defend, so the end result is unknown.  I also expect continuing bloodshed if the current situation does not change.  An opinion which you prefer to ignore.  As if all the killing in the past 39 years had nothing at all to do with the occupation.  Although you are probably completely unimpressed by Arab deaths, they are also a factor to consider, and the occupation and resistance to the occupation have cost many thousands of Arab lives as well as a much smaller number of Jewish lives.

<<  Yea, you say "we don't know what'll happen", but you've already conceded that realistically it's likley there would be. >>

What they are doing is just plain wrong.  It has produced thousands of deaths as well as undying hatred for America for supporting this injustice for so long.  It has to stop.  Fear of the immediate consequences can not be allowed to stop them from doing the right thing.  They may be attacked if they pull out, which you seem to have no problem understanding, they have been and will continue to be attacked if they hang on, which for some inexplicable reason you seem to be unable to understand.

<<What is Israel supposed to do, outside of praying, given your position of unilateral pulling back??  >>

In a long list of asinine arguments, this is probably the dumbest yet.  What did they do between 1948 and 1967 without having the West Bank?  Pray?  They defended themselves as best they could and they even managed to attack their neighbours and steal even more of their land.

<<If you call on aggressively defending themselves & fighting back, then you're a hypopcrite, since that's precisely what they're doing now, they simply have more defensible positions. >>

According to that logic, Hitler was just "aggressively defending himself" by invading Poland and France, and "acquiring more defensible positions."   You are sounding crazier and crazier with each post you write.
 
<<So, then we're right back to square 1>>

Speak for yourself, sirs.  I wouldn't even want to speculate on where you are.  I'd need a degree in abnormal psychiatry.

[sirs]

<<Then what do you expect?  You actually already answered that question.  You expect there to be more violence, and more killing of Israelis, with the embolden position affored the terrorists, with the pull out.  >>

No, I said if the pull-out were conducted now by the present Israeli leadership, it would be taken as evidence of weakness by most Arabs.  This could result in more attacks but it could also result in stronger defences because the IDF has less territory to defend, so the end result is unknown.

But the immediate effect is more known, and very plausible as you yourself have conceded.  As such, I'm not making that "could" gamble, but no one is stopping you from advocating such a one sided weakened position.
 

I also expect continuing bloodshed if the current situation does not change.  An opinion which you prefer to ignore.  

How strange, since I've never claimed such, or ignored such.  In fact I've made many references as to how such a situation could change, and how the bloodshed could be diminished, if not abolished, and it doesn't gamble with Israeli lives.  But you refuse to pay attention, and just keep pushing the template of how bad Israel is supposed to be, and how they need to change their ways, regardless the repercussions.  That's the biggest difference between the 2 of us.  I'm looking at all sides, you insist on looking thru your "Israel is bad" blinders.

<<If you call on aggressively defending themselves & fighting back, then you're a hypopcrite, since that's precisely what they're doing now, they simply have more defensible positions. >>

According to that logic, Hitler was just "aggressively defending himself" by invading Poland and France, and "acquiring more defensible positions."   

Ignoring the history books, yet again Tee?.  Hitler (and Naziism) was aggressively & actively expanding, so the "defending himself" is pretty much null & void, especially since neither Poland nor France were massing their militaries on Germany's borders, nor did the French President pledge to destroy Germany.  Hitler was publically and militarily murdering over a million Jews, in his concentration camps.  To this date, I have yet to see or hear about 1 Palestinian murdered in some Israeli concentration camp.  Since I realize how you're mutating back into your alternate version of historical events, I'll sign off with you now, on this     

[Michael Tee]

<<But the immediate effect is more known, and very plausible as you yourself have conceded.  As such, I'm not making that "could" gamble, but no one is stopping you from advocating such a one sided weakened position.>>

You've got it turned around exactly 180 degrees.  Any new policy is a step into the unknown.  I speculate that giving up the West Bank at this point will be interpreted as a sign of weakness.  That's not known, that's speculation.  I speculate that there could be more attacks if weakness is perceived.  OTOH, I know for a fact that the present policy of occupation and settlement has led to thousands of deaths and continuing ongoing humiliation and total deprivation of human rights for three million Palestinians and outrage all over the Muslim world, turning to hatred of both the U.S.A. and Israel.  Because you are so afraid of the future, you have convinced yourself that the future carnage resulting from a conciliatory move will be worse than the carnage already demonstrated to be the inevitable result of the ongoing brutalization of an entire people.

<<In fact I've made many references as to how such a situation could change . . . >>

As far as I can recall, they all involved radical change on the part of the "fanatical" "evil" "extremist" Muslims as a first step, which is outrageous.  You don't rob and humiliate an entire people, steal half their land and imprison them in their own homes for 40 years and then tell them you'll give them back their homes and their land if they change their bad attitude!   That's just outrageous.  If wrongs and injustices could be ranked on a scale of one to a hundred, the occupation would be up in the 70s or 80s and the hatred that extremist Muslims harbour towards the Jews would be in the 20s or 30s.  Bad deeds are always more evil than bad thoughts.

<<I'm looking at all sides, you insist on looking thru your "Israel is bad" blinders. >>

It looks to me like you're looking at this from a purely Israeli POV.  I don't see any real attempt by you to see this from the Arab side, although I don't know for sure that you don't.  I've seen constant attempts to demonize Arabs and Muslims, papered over by the "explanation" that it's only the "extremists" you have in mind.  But then you constantly bewail the "silence" of the Muslim "moderates" which basically calls into question the very existence of Muslim moderates. 

I DO look at this from the "occupation is bad" side, also from the historical injustice side as well - - a huge injustice was done to the Arabs when the State of Israel was founded.  I wouldn't like to think "Israel is bad."  Israel is a necessity - - a necessary evil, as it turns out - - it came into being because of anti-Semitism, but the real solution to anti-Semitism IMHO is the brotherhood of man, not another national state fighting other national states for a few acres of land, torturing and killing for it just like all the others.  Unfortunately the world is not ready for the brotherhood of man to become a practical reality anytime soon and in the meantime the State of Israel is an ugly necessity for the survival of the Jewish people. 

I think you need to distinguish between "Israel is bad" and "the occupation is bad."  You can't accept that the occupation is so bad that people are willing to kill as many Jews as they can, and don't care whether they themselves live or die.  BUt that's a fact.  Recognizing that fact isn't the same as thinking that "Israel is bad."  And thinking that "Israel is bad" is just a non-issue.  Israel will defend itself regardless of what people think. But I don't confuse the occupation with self-defence.  The one has nothing to do with the other.

<<Ignoring the history books, yet again Tee?.  Hitler (and Naziism) was aggressively & actively expanding, so the "defending himself" is pretty much null & void especiallly since neither Poland nor France were massing their militaries on Germany's borders, nor did the French President pledge to destroy Germany. >>

Well a pretty good argument could be made that Israel was also aggressively expansionist, notwithstanding its claims to the contrary.  The point was that in both cases, land was conquered by force of arms and a claim by the conquering nation that it can't give up the occupied territories because it is holding them "defensively" is absurd.  Especially absurd after the passage of 40 years, the death of the President who made the alleged threats, the peace treaties now in place with two of the three "threatening" nations and last but not least the utter illegality of the occupation even by treaties to which Israel itself is a signatory.

[Henny]

Although you are probably completely unimpressed by Arab deaths, they are also a factor to consider, and the occupation and resistance to the occupation have cost many thousands of Arab lives as well as a much smaller number of Jewish lives.

This is what has me boiling. All of the Arab lives lost for so many years, long before there were any intifadas... and no one cares. As long as an Israeli doesn't die, who cares, right?

[domer]

Michael, you raise of a number of interesting points, which I believe can be refuted, but I'll focus on two: the creation of the State of Israel was a profound injustice to the Arab people, and Israel now is "an ugly necessity (for survival of the Jewish people)." I question whether incremental, arms-length Zionism followed upon by the post-World War II immediacy of the need for a Jewish homeland really resulted in an injustice so much as a tragedy, with the real responsible parties unanswerable in any meaningful, let alone adequate, way. Further, the tensions created by the desperate Jewish inflow roiled the situation in Palestine such that the dominant character of the Jewish activities can't definitely be characterized any more as usurpation than as Arab cessation. The fledgling Jewish hopes were actually attacked by a large alliance of Arab states, contributing to the maelstrom of Palestinian flight, with the Jews in virtually every real sense fighting for their survival (as you acknowledge) and not their expansionist dreams. Your observation, further, that "Israel is now an ugly necessity for survival of the Jewish people," in my view clinches the characterization of Israel's founding as a tragedy but not an injustice for which the Jews (Israelis) are to blame. Necessity, I propose, creates its own moral imperatives. Given the indefinite or mixed character of the Palestinian flight in the post-war years, but more importantly the triggering events for the Jewish migration, survival was clearly the Jewish enterprise, and, on balance, justly so, yielding a conception of the entire sweep of events as distinctly NOT condemnatory of the Israelis, except in the mind of ghouls or actual injured parties (Palestinians), who nonetheless face the ethically mandatory task of accounting for the state of affairs in all its tortured complexity, as if God had swept across the land and said, "This problem I entrust to you."

[sirs]

This is what has me boiling. All of the Arab lives lost for so many years, long before there were any intifadas... and no one cares. As long as an Israeli doesn't die, who cares, right?

Wrong.  Miss Henny, if you could turn down your burner for a moment , would you mind demonstrating for me how I'm so "unimpressed" with Arab lives lost?  Perhap you can also show me where Israel is targeting and murdering all these innocent Arab civilians.  That way I can properly condemn Israel for those acts.  And last time I checked, Israeli men, women and children, are still being targeted and murdered, so I'm not sure how your last question applies.  I thank you in advance

[Michael Tee]

<<I question whether incremental, arms-length Zionism followed upon by the post-World War II immediacy of the need for a Jewish homeland really resulted in an injustice so much as a tragedy, with the real responsible parties unanswerable in any meaningful, let alone adequate, way.>>

domer, why can't it be an injustice AND a tragedy?  IMHO, that's exactly what it is.

We could argue for a long time about the history of it all starting from the end of WWII, but my view, in a nutshell, is that the Jews were very smart and well-organized, with plans which (for good reason) did NOT accept the UN partition scheme and with a very tough fighting force already organized and battle-ready, to carve out their own version of the partition plan.  The Arabs were forced out of their homes by a well-planned campaign of threats and terror. which included at least two spectacular massacres of villagers (the better-known one being at Deir Yassin) and a simultaneous propaganda campaign aimed at the West claiming that it was the Arab leaders who urged the Arabs to leave their homes, while the Jews were begging them to stay put.  All of which is well-documented, as is the opposing history that the Zionists and their apologists love to quote from.  Which is one reason I don't want to spend a lot of time going over the history.  It's your sources against my sources, and while I am convinced (having heard both sides) that mine are more in touch with the reality of what happened, it's a debate that is never going to end, and in addition, is not really all that germane to the current problem.

I think at this point we are faced with the Occupation, which is the 800-lb. gorilla in the room and the one problem most immediately productive of hatred, rage and ultimately killing violence.  It's just a festering sore that has continued for way too long, and it has to go.  I am convinced that, if not all other problems, then at least 80% or 90% of them, can be traced back to the Occupation, and so the boil sooner or later (hopefully sooner) will have to be lanced.  Is that the "magic bullet" that will solve all the problems between Israel and the Arabs?  Of course not.  But it IS a step away from the past, and a very big one at that.  All the other problems will be easier to deal with once that first big step is  taken.

[Michael Tee]

<<would you mind demonstrating for me how I'm so "unimpressed" with Arab lives lost? >>

The proper way, of course, would be to review all your posts on the subject, and count the number of references you've made to Jewish lives lost and the number of references you've made to Arab lives lost.  The number of times you have condemned the killing of Arabs by Jews and the number of times you've condemned the killing of Jews by Arabs.  Call me paranoid, call me irrational, call me a blithering idiot - - but I've got a feeling that a pattern would emerge, a very clear and unmistakeable pattern.

Not having the time to conduct such a laborious analysis, and knowing in advance what the result would be, I will just say that I  have enough common sense and knowledge of people to glean from the general tenor of your correspondence here (which I've seen quite a bit of) that you are almost totally indifferent to the loss of Arab life whether that occurs in Israel, Lebanon or Iraq.

[sirs]

     Given the "common sense" you apply to how Bush lied us into war and stole the election(s), pretty much demonstrates the folly of how much you'd be able to apply it to how "unimpressed" I am with the loss of Arab lives

[Michael Tee]

<<Given the "common sense" you apply to how Bush lied us into war and stole the election(s), pretty much demonstrates the folly of how much you'd be able to apply it to how "unimpressed" I am with the loss of Arab lives>>

You've never been impressed by logic and common sense before, I would have fallen off my chair if they started to impress you now.  You're probably one of the last 30% in the country who still won't believe that Bush lied you into a war.  However, much as I'd love the opportunity of combing through all your past posts and proving what I stated about your indifference to the loss of Arab life, I'll save the two or three hours for better things and rest on what I know of your and your correspondence. 

[Plane]

Although you are probably completely unimpressed by Arab deaths, they are also a factor to consider, and the occupation and resistance to the occupation have cost many thousands of Arab lives as well as a much smaller number of Jewish lives.

This is what has me boiling. All of the Arab lives lost for so many years, long before there were any intifadas... and no one cares. As long as an Israeli doesn't die, who cares, right?

Indefaddaths also result in Arabs dieing.

If one were to believe the worst of Ariel Sharon , one might suspect that he instigated one of them for its desirable polearising effect.

I think maybe.


I am pretty certain that people of good will could be found on both sides, their work would be more effective in peacetime , but they are the first victims of extrimism on both sides.

[sirs]

<<Given the "common sense" you apply to how Bush lied us into war and stole the election(s), pretty much demonstrates the folly of how much you'd be able to apply it to how "unimpressed" I am with the loss of Arab lives>>

You've never been impressed by logic and common sense before.......,

Now. let's finish the sentence with a more accurate qualifier;

...........coming from me and my 'tee leaf' logic of what is, is

There, much better.  You may continue now

[Henny]

<<would you mind demonstrating for me how I'm so "unimpressed" with Arab lives lost? >>

The proper way, of course, would be to review all your posts on the subject, and count the number of references you've made to Jewish lives lost and the number of references you've made to Arab lives lost.  The number of times you have condemned the killing of Arabs by Jews and the number of times you've condemned the killing of Jews by Arabs.  Call me paranoid, call me irrational, call me a blithering idiot - - but I've got a feeling that a pattern would emerge, a very clear and unmistakeable pattern.

Not having the time to conduct such a laborious analysis, and knowing in advance what the result would be, I will just say that I  have enough common sense and knowledge of people to glean from the general tenor of your correspondence here (which I've seen quite a bit of) that you are almost totally indifferent to the loss of Arab life whether that occurs in Israel, Lebanon or Iraq.

Sirs, per your earlier request for clarification on my comment about Arab lives lost... MT answered it here fore me.

[domer]

Michael, let's try to advance this discussion, following your lead. In as balanced a view as you can muster (in light of your tendency to passionately criticize the Israelis), can you prioritize the Israeli reasons for now maintaining control of the West Bank? I will suggest a few: security, raw and simple: at this point at least, without policing, the West Bank would degenerate further into a hotbed of Israeli-hatred spawning many more terrorists and many more catastrophic terrorist attacks; this antipathy, festering now but expected to bloom upon a "loosening of controls," may only be short-circuited by a formal agreement, a statement of principles and a structure for operating together as two contiguous states -- that would provide the best hope for a present peace and a long-term reconciliation; or, the Israelis, to an appreciable degree, are hanging on to the West Bank as a bargaining device.