The Jews are to blame

[shira]

The Jews are to blame
Online talkbacks in US allow anti-Semitism to shift from margins to mainstream

Published: 05.04.09, 12:13 / Israel Opinion


Two weeks ago, Henry Kissinger published an article in the Washington Post about America and Iran. The item revealed nothing new: Kissinger has not been revealing anything new for many years now. He also made no pretenses of saying anything new. In his awkward, academic style, the legendary secretary of state sought to remind the Obama administration that negotiations with a state like Iran cannot be premised on words only. The talk must be backed up by deterrent power.


It wasn’t the article that was of interest, but rather, the talkbacks that the newspaper’s website posted below the item. It’s been a while since I’ve seen such overabundance of Jew hatred. The respondents, all of them using nicknames, charged the Jewish people with conspiring to entangle the United States in a military operation in Iran in order to make profits and promote the State of Israel’s dark interests.


The Jews control the American administration, lamented the respondents in one talkback after another. They control Congress and the media. The Jews are America’s real enemy. There were always anti-Semites in American. The surprise is that this anti-Semitic garbage is being published by one of the world’s most respected newspapers. The second surprise is that it didn’t prompt much reaction.


The Jewish community in the US has a powerful and effective organization tasked with fighting any anti-Semitic display. It’s called the Anti-Defamation League. The League’s National Director, Abe Foxman, was in Israel last week. I told him about the talkbacks I read and he shook his head sadly. The League employs seven people in monitoring anti-Semitic statements on the Internet. Yet they can’t handle the onslaught.

.....cont'd:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3710481,00.html

[aquart]

1. Always have been. Eve was Jewish.

But Adam was a goy.

[elleng]

4. No No No,

he was a GUY!

[aquart]

9. At the time, it was the same thing.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

11. Too bad they didn't practice safe sex... we wouldn't be in the

predicament we find ourselves in now.

[anonymous171]

199. FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF-

Everything makes sense now.

[Trajan]

2. Just like in DU ....

While anti-semitism TRULY exists, simply expounding that 'some' Israelis might wish the US Military to intervene on 'their' behalf, and simply disagreeing with that, is NOT anti-semitism ....

There are reasons some might wish to capitalize on such rhetoric .... and some might be Israeli ....

[cali]

5. self-delete

[LeftishBrit]

15. It's not antisemitism to suggest that they might WISH it...

just as some Americans might wish the Israelis to 'go first' and 'deal with' Iran for them, and others might wish the British to do, etc.

However, it is generally either antisemitic or generally xenophobic to imply that the Israelis are responsible for America's wars, or 'got America into Iraq'. Antisemitic if it is associated with a belief that Israelis/Jews/Zionists have some sort of secret control over, or infiltration into, world institutions; not antisemitic but still xenophobic if it is associated with an attitude that one's country's mistakes are caused largely by foreigners, and thus one's own government is partly off the hook. E.g. - although Britain followed America into Iraq, I think that it is xenophobic and an escape from responsibility to say that America 'got us in'. Britain could have refused, the same way as France did.

[Ken Burch]

28. In fact, one of the ugliest parts of the story is that many of the strongest "Christian" supporters

of Zionism were actually antisemites themselves(Balfour was notorius for this, Lloyd George was pretty bad too)who backed the creation of a "Jewish state" because they wanted to drive down the Jewish populations of THEIR states.

And such leaders hardly cared if the result was that Jews were killed in a desert thousands of miles from their homelands.

[Smith_3]

3. It's hard to argue that jews control America when Saudi Arabia and China owns most of America.

I wouldn't deny the fact that foreign interest groups have a large say in american politics but the Israel lobby is only one among a few.

[cali]

6. Foxman is the wrong person to head the anti-defamation league.

[Ken Burch]

27. With Foxman, they should call it the Defamation League.

All he's about is accusing anyone who disagrees with Israeli policy of antisemitism. Foxman doesn't actually give a damn about stopping any form of prejudice.

[mmonk]

7. Hyperbole.

There are two types. There is the kind of anti-semitic neo nazi types and their paranoic screed and the kind that the modern state of Israel is Judaism itself and therefore above reproach or criticism.

[cali]

8. self-delete

it's early. I haven't had coffee. I posted in the wrong thread. sorry.

[mmonk]

14. No problem.

Feel free to respond anyway.

[aquart]

10. And the third who use that excuse to mask something else.

"Above criticism" is a straw man. Let me know when you criticize an Arab action. Show me the links to your outraged posts when Hamas rounded up the "collaborators." I will be fascinated to read them.

[mmonk]

13. So what is your premise that my premise is?

I didn't know this thread was about Hamas or Arabs.

[mmonk]

16. The problem with the piece is simple.

It gives no context to the content of what Kissinger said. Second, it gives no direct quotes of the comments or to the volume of support and/or dissent from the article. Third, it is saying that by allowing comments, it is allowing anti-semitism to be mainstream in the United States.

[LeftishBrit]

18. Mmm

The first two of your criticisms are indeed valid criticisms if the article is to be taken as a scholarly article. As regards the last - I don't think they're saying that ALLOWING comments is allowing anti-semitism to be mainstream. I think they're saying that the comments *reflect*, rather than causing, a worrying undercurrent of antisemitism.

Can reading such comments *cause* antisemitism? It is indeed true that the internet makes it easier for antisemitic, and other bigoted, ideas to spread; it is generally easier to click on an antisemitic site or article or comment, than to attend a demagogue's speech or buy a pamphlet. On the other hand, the internet also makes it easier to recognize and fight against bigotry. It's a double-edged sword.

[mmonk]

19. True.

[Ken Burch]

29. The fact is, in the I/P dispuite, the Israeli government has ALL the real power.

The Palestinians are doing what ANY powerless people would do when faced with what everyone would have to concede are their oppressors: the thugs of the IDF.

It's ridiculous to imply that they'd treat any other oppressors differently.

The I/P dispute has never been about "not wanting Jews to live where they want".

This is why decent Jewish people, like Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Ronnie Gilbert, Amy Goodman and thousands of others speak out for the Palestinian people. They, unlike the defenders of the status quo in Israeli security policy, are the defenders of the Jewish moral tradition.

[shira]

30. ridiculous

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x273493#273800

[rateyes]

46. Your response in that thread is ridiculous, as is your response in this thread.

[cali]

31. "decent jews"? what the tarnation?

so jews that agree with your pov are the only decent jews? just ugh.

[Ken Burch]

34. I meant the ones who stand up for the values of their tradition.

People(Christians as well)who defend Israeli security policies unquestioningly, don't.

There's no way anyone can look at the Palestinians as the persecutors in this scenario.

[Ken Burch]

37. I said "decent Jewish people", not "Decent Jews". There is a HUGE difference

I admire people in any community who stand for justice. Those who back the status quo on Israeli security policy don't. Those who equate any real criticism of the Israeli government and who defend the settlements don't. And the worse thing is, they've made life worse for actual Israelis by supporting policies that only make the situation worse.

[Jim Sagle]

39. You said "Decent Jews", not "decent Jewish people".

As proof, note that SEVERAL posters took objection (see other comments above besides mine).

Then you went back and changed the post.

Finally you lied about it.

We agree in one respect: there IS a huge difference.

On edit: on further reflection, there's hardly ANY difference.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. He didn't edit the post at all...

I just looked at it and it hasn't been edited, so he's telling the truth...

[Ken Burch]

80. Thanks for the back-up, Violet

I didn't edit that post.

Perhaps I could have phrased what I said differently, but I never meant what Sagle wants to think I meant.

[LeftishBrit]

43. While I strongly disagree with most of the points in that post, it doesn't seem to have been edited.

[Ken Burch]

49. I was commending people who stood up for the moral standards of the Jewish tradition

Something defenders of Israeli security policies(regardless of religion or ethnicity)don't.

[Jim Sagle]

32. Decent people don't write comments about "decent Jews."

[Ken Burch]

36. What's not decent is equating "Israel" with all of Judaism.

And what's especially not decent is punishing the Palestinians for the Holocaust, when that hideous event was the sole responsibility of Germans.

I despise antisemitism. Opposing antisemitism doesn't mean saying that nobody who's Jewish can be criticized about anything. And it doesn't mean that Israeli security policies cannot be condemned when they produce injustice.

[LeftishBrit]

44. I disagree that 'all powerless people' would do the same..

there are violent and nonviolent ways of resisting. The Palestinians themselves have used less violent methods at times, and these have tended to be more effective.

I oppose the 'status quo' in Israeli security policy, and in fact don't think the policies increase security in the long term, as well as being wrong in many ways. But I also disagree that one can say that *one* group of opinions represents 'the Jewish' (or substitute any faith) 'moral tradition'. There are dangers, which we've often seen in various contexts, in identifying a particular political viewpoint as the only proper one for any particular religion or nationality.

[Ken Burch]

52. There are nonviolent resistance methods, of course.

And yes, not all Palestinian resistance has been violent nor has all resistance on the part of other oppressed peoples.

Still, if you push people far enough, if you hold them down brutally enough, you do often see that people(or at least significant factions within that people), whoever they are, decide that the most drastic methods are the only ones that could work. Many of the methods the African National Congress used were comparable to things that Hamas has done. There were many other examples all over the world. I opposed and continue to oppose all such methods. Nonetheless, the methods themselves do not justify ignoring the issues that drove the decision to use them.

It's unconscionable to argue that the Palestinians have been singularly evil in their methods and tactics. It's also incredibly naive to imply that they'd have a state if only they'd done as the Israeli government demanded. They DID do as that government demanded all through the Nineties and the Israelis didn't even stop building settlements.

It's sickening that some people still pretend that all of the ugliness is solely the fault of "The Palestinian leadership". I know that's not what you say, but there are a lot of people here who hold to that line with a death grip.

[leftynyc]

60. Decent Jews?

Why? Because they agree with you? Oy Vey.

[Ken Burch]

97. I was honoring people who stood for the standards of their moral tradition

I respect anyone who does that.

I wish more Christians did the same.

Oh, and I said "Decent Jewish people"(which might still not have been the best way of phrasing it)not "decent Jews". I would never use the second phraseology and I deplore antisemitism.

[cali]

165. I know you're a person of good will, Ken, but

that you said decent Jewish people isn't any different in my book than saying decent jews. I would never refer to decent Palestinians as being the ones that stand up against, say, Hamas and their ideology is hardly admirable, yet I'm sure that good people in Gaza and the WB support them for various reasons- some good, some likely not as good. It's just not cool to decree that those who disagree with you aren't "decent". And that in essence is what you did.

[LeftishBrit]

17. More than two types - hyperbole is the name of the game in international politics

and most nations seem to think they themselves should be above criticism, while everyone else must obviously be in the wrong!

As regards antisemitism particularly, there are the obvious neo-Nazis, and then there are the probably more numerous RW-libertarian neo-isolationists, who often subscribe to a very old-fashioned paranoia about foreigners in general and Jews in particular. (And IMO the most right-wing Israelis are often a mirror-image of the latter. Avigdor Lieberman has much more in common with xenophobic-isolationists like Pat Buchanan or LePen than with the equally RW, but different, neocon-imperialists.) Too many, though not all, of the RW-isolationists have direct or indirect links with the real neo-Nazis, and are sometimes quoted on sites like Stormfront and David Duke's site. Paul Craig Roberts sometimes writes for a truly vile site called vdare.com.

[mmonk]

20. Good post.

[Mosby]

25. Have you been following the LGF vs. Spawn of LGF blog war?

It's been pretty entertaining. Seems that Johnson draws the line at fascism and has thrown Spencer and Geller off the LGF bus. Johnson has been posting extensive "investigative" reports on his web site about the links between a bunch of euro fascists and the two of them.

[Algorem]

12. why doesn't this nut give a link to the article by the "legendary" Henry Kissinger?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR2009042102967_Comments.html

[Smarmie Doofus]

21. A link to the original WP article and/or the comments would be helpful here:

>>>The Jews control the American administration, lamented the respondents in one talkback after another. They control Congress and the media. The Jews are America’s real enemy. There were always anti-Semites in American. The surprise is that this anti-Semitic garbage is being published by one of the world’s most respected newspapers. The second surprise is that it didn’t prompt much reaction.>>>

I have a hunch the author may be mischaracterizing just a tad.

Maybe not. Just a hunch.

Weren't there *any* reasonable, responsible, non-anti-semitic critiques of Kissinger or Israel in the bunch?

[mmonk]

22. It's why I mentioned hyperbole in a post above.

It leads the reader without proof, context, and levels accusations and submits summations of the writer's point of view while bringing in unrelated elements to Kissinger's piece such as the ADL and a college professor critic of Israel.

[IndianaGreen]

23. So now you are crying foul about the talkbacks in a newspaper?

Worse yet, you are trying to extrapolate the comments as characteristics of public opinion as a whole. Masochism much?

:boring:

[azurnoir]

24. Perhaps we should critique the talkbacks in JPost, Ynet

and Ha'aretz using the same criteria

[Ken Burch]

26. It's never been about "The Jews"...It's about the injustice Israel is inflicting on Palestinians

The Palestinians would react the same way if other Arabs OR the Ottoman(who did nothing to them but tax them)or American "Christians" were treating them this way.

Please stop spreading the lie that this is about antisemitism. You know better than that.

[pelsar]

33. its exactly about the jews.....

unfortunately one simple has to do a bit of reading and know some history....

to begin with the Palestenians are treated much much worse in Lebanon, yet there is no outcry about their conditions, human rights violations etc. especially from the arab press-it only "counts" when israel may or may not be doing something....but that by now should be obvious.


More so, and far more telling is that the arab press uses the word "jews" and the Palestinians use the word "jews" when discussing israel.

(but you have to listen to interviews of Palestinians in the street as opposed to some article by the some UN human rights observer who has an agenda)

and of course its not really about human rights, since, again for those who have some knowledge, its pretty clear that some of greatest violators of human rights are the PA and Hamas but and this is the irony, its not about human rights, its about nationalism. Nationalism for many is infact far more important that civil rights, which is why the PA and Hamas, and friends can get away with so much, since its about "their land." (which is more important than civil rights)

[Ken Burch]

35. If there is no outcry about how Palestinians are treated in Lebanon,

explain why almost all Palestinians in Lebanon support Hezbollah? They support it because they don't accept their treatment their. Proving my point.

[kayecy]

38. One right, one wrong.........

One right, one wrong:

......its not about human rights, its about nationalism

Hey.....I can agree with you there Pelsar!

....its exactly about the jews.....

But you are wrong on that one...It is not "exactly about jews" is it?....The incomers just happened to be Jews and happened to give the local Arabs grounds to be suspicious of their real intentions....Any other alien people with similar intentions would have been treated the same.
.

[pelsar]

41. fuzzzy...on number two...

if the incomers had been arabs (as in fact they were in the 1920's) and either took over the land or syrian and egypt took it when the brits left there would be no outcry (just as there was no outcry with jordan and egypt after 48.

so what we have here: "white, european jews" coming in with wild socialistic ideas...definitely foreign and on top of that jews. So where as i agree with you, that local and newly immigrated arabs (just to push the point that not all were locals) would not look approvingly upon these foreign invaders, that fact that they were jews were probably the "icing on the cake".... (the jewish history in the area is a direct historical cultural threat to the Arab/Palestinian nationalism)

`----
the outcry i'm taking about is the western left...Palestinians trapped in camps in Lebanon, with limited resources and movement and yet one sure doesnt hear about an nice westerners trying to break in and deliver food, medicines etc

i dont care that there is a double standard, but i think it would be nice if it was at least admitted.

[kayecy]

42. Not fuzzy at all....Show me an example where the locals have NOT resisted alien invaders...

...the outcry i'm taking about is the western left...Palestinians trapped in camps in Lebanon, with limited resources and movement and yet one sure doesn't hear about an nice westerners trying to break in and deliver food, medicines etc

Another 'RIGHT'...It is disgusting...Those of us who care have been trying to get them returned to their home villages.

Unfortunately there is one Western state which doesn't accept its responsibilities for this mess, and whereas one accepts that non-Western states have disgusting standards, when one finds a Western state which has no moral scruples about collective punishment, occupation, human-rights etc one feels very differently...You may chose to call that double standards, I call it demanding Western civilised standards from a Western state.
.

...if the incomers had been arabs (as in fact they were in the 1920's) and either took over the land or syrian and egypt took it when the brits left there would be no outcry (just as there was no outcry with jordan and egypt after 48.

RIGHT again!..(Well, half-right, you know as well as I do that the 1920 Arab incomers were minor compared to the Zionists)... However, you misunderstand me...My point is that the Palestinians reacted to the Zionist incomers in exactly the same way as most other people did under pressure from aliens..The Algerians fought the French colonials, the Aztecs fought the Spanish.

This conflict is not about Jews, it is about Western aliens colonising an Arab land.
.

[pelsar]

45. which western country are you talking about?

when one finds a Western state which has no moral scruples about collective punishment, occupation, human-rights etc one feels very differently.

the US?, UK? France, Israel? Canada?, Turkey?........

but this is the key:



since history is clear that the jews were infact there a couple thousand of years ago, some stayed, most were kicked out.... and in returning they are now considered by you to be aliens...so the obvious question is when do the Palestenians who are not living there start becoming "aliens"..at what year? 500 years outside? 1000?


__


and btw why do you have a double standard anyway?....are non western states "retarded" that they cant understand civil rights?

[kayecy]

47. Wrong this time...It's you who is all hung up about 'Jews'....

....since history is clear that the jews were infact there a couple thousand of years ago, some stayed, most were kicked out.... and in returning they are now considered by you to be aliens

Wrong this time old fellow...It's you who is all hung up about 'Jews'.....I said Zionists... ie European aliens, not one of whom could trace his or her ancestory back to Palestine...Be reasonable, Kosovo is the 14th century birthplace of the Serbs - does that give modern Serbs the right to walk into Kosovo and demand its return?

....are non western states "retarded" that they cant understand civil rights?

Your words, not mine.....But since you ask, I do not consider Afganistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria etc as being very strong on civil rights...In fact their attitude to human rights is disgusting - much worse than Israel's...Then again, unlike Israel, they don't claim to be part of Western civilisation.
.

[pelsar]

48. it does clear things up...

can we have one standard?....

these "zionists" from europe and the various arab countries that came to live in israel all have similar prayers and traditions that link them the jerusalem and the land around it.....and they identify themselves as jews...i assume that your not going to tell them that they infact are not jews and that the jewish history does not belong to them?

i assume not...so these jews do in fact have a history to the land....as the serbs do to kosvo in the 14th century and the Palestinians do, since their national identity from around the 1900s.

but according to you the jews lose their "ownership" because they've been away too long as the Serbs have....the Palestinians have been out for 60 years now.....when can we call it that they lose out?...and will they accept your dateline?

i think that is fair, if you can disenfranchise an entire people from their history and call them aliens, i think it reasonable to know when that actually happens according to you...
_______

yes israel considers itself western, so are you as disgusted with the US, the UK (falklands war), New Zealand, and others.....or is this just a zionist thing.

and for your education...this concept of pretending zionists are some kind of mutant jew, just tends to confirm amongst most jews that anti semitism is alive and well, just mutating in to new forms....spare us the intellectual divisions... the "anti zionists terrorists" must have got confused when they blew up the jewish community center in Argentina, or in india, or separated the jews from the others in Entebbe, etc. Your division may play well in the intellectual circles....the reality of the middle east, the way the Palestenians speak of jews (not zionists or israelis) makes it clear that on the ground you separation means little...which in fact is the motivation for israel in the first place....and that is what its all about.

that is the reality on the ground...when you can educate the arab masses, hizballa, islamic jihad of the difference between zionist and jew, then there might be something to talk about...start with them (and can you get egypt to remove the movie "the protocols of zion" off of the movie screen, and have iran do a reverse on Zahra's Blue Eyes,



its clear to me that your whole thesis is that jews no longer have anything to fear about being singled out and therefore the concept of israel and jews not being treated as second class citizen etc is no longer valid......we jews have seen that attitude before and its been wrong time and time again.......so this time it is different

[Ken Burch]

50. Jews were singled out and treated differently...but by EUROPEANS

It was the Germans and their allies who committed the Holocaust. The Palestinians were blameless in that, and thus didn't deserve to be driven away or treated as the next villains.

Antisemitism was and is a monstrous crime. But it was a European crime. In the Arab world, for many many years, Jews lived as equals with Muslims and Christians. Palestinian Arabs more or less got along with the indigenous Jewish population that remained in Palestine.

The problem emerged when people like Ben-Gurion came in and took a proprietary attitude towards the land...an attitude that it was more theirs than the Arab population. How could this NOT make things worse.

The Jewish communities of this world deserved(and deserve today)far better than what they got from the rest of humanity. But there has to be some other way of dealing with this rather than fighting for the right to be a conqueror. And the Palestinians never deserved to be treated as the successors in antisemitic infamy to the Romans, the Inquisition, the Tsar and Schickelgruber.

Fighting to crush the Palestinians is not an honorable thing to do. And Israel doesn't have to crush them to survive. Peace doesn't have to be based(and indeed CAN'T be based)on trying to force Palestinians to essentially surrender to Israel. There has to be a resolution based in justice and equality.

Palestinians aren't monsters. Israelis aren't natural imperialists. The humanity of both needs to be respected. What the Israeli government has been doing works against achieving that respect.

One final thing, pels:

You talked about the "wild socialistic ideas" of Zionism being a source of Arab hostility. The Arab and Palestinian position on Israel never had anything to do with Israel being socialist(which it isn't now and which it's not going to be again, as you know). In the 1950's, most Arab countries publicly backed some form of socialism(an authoritarian military variety, to be sure, but still).
So you cannot honestly paint this dispute as "Israeli=left-wing, Arab/Palestinian=right wing". If Arabs are right wing, how, for example, do you explain the existence of the Hadash Party?

And if the Zionists had really wanted to help build socialism, they would have allowed Palestinian workers to join the Histradut. Socialism is supposed to extend past national boundaries. Because they weren't allowed to join, Palestinian workers had no protection from exploitation and began their long story of being forced to do nothing but low-wage work in the area. The Histradut and all Labor Zionists should apologize for this exclusion and admit it was a betrayal of their socialist ideas.

[shira]

51. you've got it all wrong

Israel was designated the Jewish national home by the League of Nations during the Mandate period, WELL before the Holocaust in Europe. So Israel is not just a result of the Holocaust. Don't forget that Jews in Russia were persecuted just as badly - and in fact, when told the German Nazis were coming - Jews in Russia thought they'd have it better with the Nazis than their Russian oppressors. Little did they know.

And Israel's enemy isn't the Palestinian people. It never was the Palestinian people. Their LEADERSHIP that is egged on by militant Islamic leadership in Iran, Saudi Arabia, useful idiots and haters elsewhere, etc.. are the enemy that cynically uses Palestinian people as pawns in their war against the Jews. If Palestinians had real leadership, refugee camps wouldn't exist in the territories and the leadership would have negotiated a homeland long ago and Palestine would be very prosperous working alongside and in peace with Israel.

[kayecy]

55. So?....Who were the members of the League of Nations in 1922?....

Israel was designated the Jewish national home by the League of Nations during the Mandate period,

So that gives it international legitimacy does it?....Who were the members of the League of Nations in 1922?....Was the US a member?....Were any Arab peoples represented?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the League was a British-French dominated club to support colonialism under the new name of 'Mandate'

.

[shira]

56. here are the original members of the League of Nations

The Mandate was 1922. Here's a link of the nations involved in that at the time.

http://worldatwar.net/timeline/other/league18-46.html

ARGENTINA, AUSTRALIA, BELGIUM, BOLIVIA, BRAZIL, CANADA, CHILE, CHINA, COLOMBIA, CUBA, CZECHOSLOVAKIA, DENMARK, EL SALVADOR, FRANCE, GREECE, GUATEMALA, HAITI, HONDURAS, INDIA, ITALY, JAPAN, LIBERIA, NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND NICARAGUA, NORWAY, PANAMA, PARAGUAY, PERSIA, PERU POLAND, PORTUGAL, RUMANIA, SIAM, SPAIN, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, SOUTH AFRICA, UNITED KINGDOM, URUGUAY VENEZUELA, YUGOSLAVIA

1920 ALBANIA, AUSTRIA, BULGARIA, COSTA RICA, FINLAND, LUXEMBOURG are admitted to the League
1921 ESTONIA, LATVIA, LITHUANIA are admitted to the League
1922 HUNGARY is admitted to the League

It appears you're trying to inject modern day expectations and ethics into events from nearly 100 years ago. You poo-poo'd the Weizmann-Faisal agreement in a similar way, even though that was the 'best' that could be done at the time.

[kayecy]

57. As I thought, no US and no Arab peoples .............

The Mandate was 1922. Here's a link of the nations involved in that at the time.
..............UNITED KINGDOM, URUGUAY VENEZUELA, YUGOSLAVIA

Thank you for showing me I was right...As I thought, no US and no Arab peoples...Nice of all the other members to give something away that wasn't their's to give.

How would you react if the UN General Assembly (much more representative than the old League of Nations) decided to give away part of modern day Israel?.
.

It appears you're trying to inject modern day expectations and ethics into events from nearly 100 years ago

From that I assume you agree that the 1920 Zionists were un-ethical by modern day expectations? - Have I understood you correctly?
.

[pelsar]

53. knowledge to be revised...will it affect your opinion?

anti semitism was alive and well in the arab world, be it blood libels, second class citizenship etc......which is one reason (of many) why jews did leave so fast the neighboring arab states. do i really have to dig up the links on the syrian blood libles? laws about jews etc?

no question that the europeans took it to new levels, but the arabs dont get a pass either.....and the Palestenians?...they sure did turn on the jews pretty quickly in the 20's....ALL of them, not just those immigrating (guess they too got confused between jews and zionists....-damn confusing isnt it)

for arguments sake: lets say i provide all kinds of links etc that show that the jews living in the arab world were not living as "equals" as you put it....will that change anything in your opinon?

__

I'll pick up the rest later..but this sentence always pissses me off..... slightly off topic but.....

There has to be a resolution based in justice and equality....since its based on massive ethnocentricity and "superiority"...just whos definition of justice are you referring to?...It clear to me that you know that the Palestinians and arab culture has a very different definition of justice than that of the west.....so do you plan on jamming down their throats your version of justice?...and what if they dont accept your version of "justice."

to clarify, peace will eventually come, but it will be based on each side balancing its own self interest with what it can reasonably get from the"other side". and selling it to its public...... compromise coming out of negotiation, justice will have nothing to do with it, and using the word only makes things worse since it gives false expectations, since its definition is culturally specific (and reeks of ethnocentricity)

[kayecy]

54. So you think that modern-day Serbs have a right to walk into modern-day Kosovo .....

..so these jews do in fact have a history to the land....as the serbs do to kosvo in the 14th century

So you think that modern-day Serbs have a right to walk into modern-day Kosovo and reclaim it do you?

.....i think that is fair, if you can disenfranchise an entire people from their history and call them aliens, i think it reasonable to know when that actually happens according to you...

Yes, that is indeed fair...I have no strong opinions on the matter...Where someone's father and grandfather came from seems reasonable to me but if you want to extend it to Great-grandfathers or even Great-great-grandfathers I wouldn't object.

Going back one thousand or even six hundred years is ridiculous.


Got to dash out now...Be back in about 6 hours to answer the second part of your message...I am sure you wil have a convincing answer!
.

[pelsar]

59. its a two part answer.....

first the principle:
that if the Palestinians can claim that they have rights to the land since they are indigenous (well at least some of the, surly not those that immigrated after the 1920's....), then so too can the jews, since the historical record is clear.

and since the UN has declared that only for the Palestinians descendants of refugees are also refugees, i assume we want to be consistent and apply that to the jews.

i'm a big fan of having a single standard. (double standards reek of racism and are too emotionally based)

___
so now its clear we have to claims to the same land..each using its descendants and history to lay claim...Most peoples after having been kicked out via war etc, pick up their pieces and get on with life, the jews unfortunately have had the honor of having anti-semitism following them all over the world, the Palestinians have the honor of being used as pawns by the western left and arab states...

and thats the impasse....the idea of saying that jews are stealing the land or that the Palestinian claim is 'weaker" (since their nat identity is from the 1900's) are both irrelevant: both claims are within each of the cultures and both have unique circumstances unlike any other that has brought the conflict to where it is today.

If the jews return is similar to stealing then we can just as easily say it was the arabs and their descendants the Palestinians that are in fact are also thieves......and had no right to interfer with the non violent immigration of the returning jews (the descendants)....

the solution lies now without "blaming" one group or the other as having a greater right, the solution is simple accepting the fact that both have claims and the solution to be worked in the present.

[kayecy]

62. That is not a principle, its a fudge.......

first the principle:
that if the Palestinians can claim that they have rights to the land since they are indigenous (well at least some of the, surly not those that immigrated after the 1920's....), then so too can the jews, since the historical record is clear.

That is not a principle, that's a fudge.
.
The principle of any fair-minded person should be that refugees have the absolute right to return to the villages they lived in before the conflict started - period.
.
Nato fought a war to enable Kosovo residents (of all races) to return to their homes... Israel, if I remember correctly was part of that effort.
.

[pelsar]

63. how?

many of those villages dont exist...and many of those refugees are no longer alive......

if you claim the descendants of those refugees get to go back....tell me how far in the descendant line?....give a me a statement and why you chose that particular cut off time vs another

and i assume we can apply that world wide.....

[kayecy]

65. "Before the conflict started" - Isn't that clear enough?...

....give a me a statement and why you chose that particular cut off time vs another

As I said before...The principle of any fair-minded person should be that refugees have the absolute right to return to the villages they lived in before the conflict started - period.

"Before the conflict started" - Isn't that clear enough?...And yes, you can apply it world-wide.

[pelsar]

68. you misunderstood...

many of those refugees are now dead (given that its been 60 + years) and their villages no longer exist...

and if israel waits another 30 years, there will no longer be the refugee problem.....since none will be alive

so i guess that solves that problem

[kayecy]

73. There will be no refugee problem?...

...and if israel waits another 30 years, there will no longer be the refugee problem.....since none will be alive

There will be no refugee problem?...is Israel going to kill them all off?.....Don't tell me, Iknow what you are going to say...It's an Syrian or Lebanese or Jordanian or UN problem...in fact anyone else's problem but Israel's.

[pelsar]

78. in 90 years....

the original refugees will no longer be alive......you made it clear that the refugees get to return.......

the Palestenian problem will still exist but no longer will the return refugees be a factor...


however if your saying that the descendants of those refugees are also refugees (as the UN says) i want to know if that applies to all refugees across the globe according to you..... (the UN says no, this is special for the Palestenians and no one else- a clear double standard)

and does it ever end-the descendants.

[kayecy]

81. I like it when you ask nice simple questions:......Yes - all over the globe............

I like it when you ask nice simple questions:

....however if your saying that the descendants of those refugees are also refugees (as the UN says) i want to know if that applies to all refugees across the globe according to you.....

Yes - all over the globe - providing the descendants of the original refugees have never had the opportunity to return to their homes. ie, Their children were born before or during the conflict.

There is even more reason to extend refugee-status to descendants if they were born in refugee camps.

[pelsar]

83. guess that doesnt apply to israel....

the conflict is still ongoing......no peace treaty signed yet (as in egypt and jordan)

the refugees will simply have to wait it out wont they?..........

[kayecy]

86. I guess that is the real difference between us ....

guess that doesnt apply to israel....
the conflict is still ongoing......no peace treaty signed yet (as in egypt and jordan)
the refugees will simply have to wait it out wont they?..........

What do you mean that my statement on refugees does not apply to Israel?...Are there many Israeli refugees?...It most certainly applies to Palestinian refugees.

...the refugees will simply have to wait it out wont they?..........

I guess that is the real difference between us - I could never make such a callous statement about fellow human beings, especially those who have been stuck in refugee camps for years.

[pelsar]

91. your just as callous...if not more

your seem to believe that the zionists should have stayed in europe and be gassed and/or lived as second class citizens rather the moving else where and restarting their lives in a very benign way (buying land, farming it.....and starting over....)

or the concentration camp survivors, who spent years after the war in dp camps because no country wanted them.....only to got to israel and face a new version of genocide....i get the impression that to you, that attempted genocide in 48 was a "reasonable reaction."

[kayecy]

92. You couldn't be more wrong Pelsar..........

..your seem to believe that the zionists should have stayed in europe and be gassed and/or lived as second class citizens rather the moving else where and restarting their lives in a very benign way (buying land, farming it.....and starting over....)

You couldn't be more wrong Pelsar - I think that Argentina, Australia and particularly the US should have offered a home for persecuted Jews as soon as it became obvious they were in real danger...The US was quite good that way until 1922 when it slammed the doors shut and even worse in 1939 when it turned back the SS St Luis.

What I can't understand is why you are so callous about Palestinian suffering and yet so passive with regard to past US actions, carefully decided by Congress in the clear knowledge of what was likely to happen...The US alone could have taken in every Jew at risk prior to 1939.

...i get the impression that to you, that attempted genocide in 48 was a "reasonable reaction

Can we agree not to use such emotive terms as 'genocide' when they are clearly not justified?

The 1948 Arabs tried to stop Palestine being partitioned on random lines...The Serbs attempted to do the same with Kosovo and yet you seem to agree with the Serbian action?
.

[Ken Burch]

93. One thing pelsar forgets is that the Zionist movement really didn't do that much

to GET Jews out of Europe. Also, a lot of Holocaust survivors who arrived in Israel after the war were treated with derision and contempt by Zionists, who insulted these people by falsely implying that they didn't resist the Nazis.

And even in the late 90's, the Israeli government was still delaying the assistance checks it was supposed to be giving to elderly Holocaust survivors, people who should have had an absolute guarantee that they would NEVER be the victims of bureaucratic stalling.

[pelsar]

100. yes the jews of Palestine were a different" breed...."

Not only didnt i forget that, i consider myself part of that breed. Though i dont hold contempt for my relatives that were in the camps, at the sametime i prefer the palmachnik who was quicker to fight and not believe the politicians that were saying "dont worry jews...it will be ok, they are only work camps"....or they really dont mean it.....


As far as israeli politicians go....i'm not really going to get in to an argument of which country has the worse politicians.....Most israeli politicians have much to be desired, though i will say one thing for them that most politicians cant say:

when the choose to go to war, not only do many know what its like, but they also know that they are putting their own kids and grandkids on the line.....

__________

as far as what the zionist movement did or didnt do to get the jews out of europe...before the war....the jews didnt want to go, they believed that it would be "just fine" after all, it was the modern age with educated people........(nothing like blaming the zionist for not being miracle workers)

[Ken Burch]

110. Your post just proved my point...you just disrespected the victims of the Shoah

You said they were happy to stay in Europe. THAT IS A LIE! After 1937 or 1938, Jews were trying desperately to get out of Europe. But nobody would take them. The U.S. and Canada barred them(something the U.S. needs to issue an official apology for, since the U.S. knew by the late '30s what was going to happen. You can't attack people for dying when they were trapped by their killers and those who knew they'd be killed didn't help until it was too late.

There was a lot of Diaspora resistance to Hitler and a lot of Diaspora resistance to what the Reich was doing, everything from the Warsaw Ghetto uprising to the Belarussian forest shelter the Bielski brothers set up, to any number of underground Jewish militias that we are only know hearing about because their history was suppressed until now. It is a despicable slander for you to act as if Zionists were somehow superior to the people killed by Hitler and entitled to treat them with scorn. You should be ashamed of yourself for saying things like that.

And I don't actually hate Israel. I admire the original ideals that drove its creation. I admire the kibbutzim and the socialist idealists, most of whom were disregarded and sidelined by cynical hawks like Ben-Gurion and whose ideals were later wiped out of the state by Begin and the Likudniks. There was something beautiful in the original dream. But the reality fell short, and the paradox is that the "pragmatic" betrays of the ideals that were rationalized under the "no choice" rubric almost always ended up undermining Israeli security. The Ariel Sharon-invented "settler" movement, for example, did more to endanger Israelis in Israel proper than a million Hamas crazies could ever have done. So did the destruction of the olive groves, the home demolitions, and the other acts of daily repression that the world has learned about and that you mimimize.

It's BECAUSE I have deep feelings of solidarity with the world's Jewish communities, including Israelis as well as Palestinians, that I've been vocal in criticizing the hardline "winning is all that matters" ethos that you so passionately embrace. What you don't get is that "winning" is no longer possible, for either side.

[Ken Burch]

98. The prosperous countries of North America could have taken in all the Jewish refugees from Europe

They would have added immeasurably to this country and Canada, both culturally, intellectually and economically. And the young men of military age would gladly have joined the U.S. military and gone back to fight Hitler and Mussolini, as many Jewish refugees trapped in Europe did in various guerrilla movements, the history of which is only recently being discovered.

Sickeningly, both the U.S. and Canada barred the doors to these people, even AFTER World War II, even after they knew what Hitler had done. Instead, they forced them to either stay in the European countries where they had recently been hunted down or forced them to move to Palestine and become partisans of a nationalist movement that most hadn't previously supported, fighting an enemy they hadn't previously had. This was a great injustice to the survivors of the European Diaspora.

[pelsar]

99. you said you were realistic...

I think that Argentina, Australia and particularly the US should have offered a home for persecuted Jews as soon as it became obvious they were in real danger...The US was quite good that way until 1922 when it slammed the doors shut and even worse in 1939 when it turned back the SS St Luis.

they didnt did they?.......the jews were stuck in europe (those few that even wanted to leave) pre and post WWII.......what were they to do?


the above is a question that i am asking for a direct answer to:


are you serious?
The 1948 Arabs tried to stop Palestine being partitioned on random lines. .....yea right...got any links?

the egyptians, syrians, jordanian, iraqis, lebanese and irregular arabs were very clear of their intentions....and it was to remove israel as soon as it came to be....and it was pretty obvious that it was going to be by violence (thats why the invading armies all had guns.....)

____

as far as the Palestenians go, on a personal level i am "feel for them", have donated to them in the past....on a national level, their political decisions, their political actions, their "allies" are not just wrong, but dangerous and are the root cause for their continued suffering....something that could have ended in 1949. but its not that relevant what i feel, its only important what they do to get out of that situation..and so far they 've been doing everything possible to make their situation much worse. (its up to them and only them)

[Ken Burch]

95. There was no attempted genocide in 1948

The truth is, the Arab armies only entered the Arab part of the partition zone, and did so to protect the Palestinian population from Israeli incursion.

And the State of Israel was hardly a welcoming place for Holocaust survivors. Those Zionists who had been lucky enough to have been away from Europe before Hitler did his horrible work smeared Holocaust survivors and looked down on them, falsely accusing them of not fighting back against the Nazis(when, in truth, there was active and heroic Jewish resistance to Naziism all over Europe).
It was a slur for you to say that non-Zionist Jews were "not as active" in standing up for themselves as Zionists, and you owe the memory of those people an apology.

Israel was a place where survivors of the Shoah should have had the right to expect to be treated with compassion and respect, and they received none. Instead, they were falsely labeled cowards.

[pelsar]

101. remind me not to drink coffee when i read your posts.....

he Arab armies only entered the Arab part of the partition zone, and did so to protect the Palestinian population from Israeli incursion.

yea, rrriiiiight...that and the fact that they were going to grab the land as well ...and something about tossing the jews into the sea i believe was mentioned once or twice.....

you really wouldnt know much about how those holocaust survivors were treated.....do you? I doubt you even know any in israel, talked to any, seen the childrens houses on the kibbutzim where the orphaned kids grew up.....the farms where they were taught to farm.....

you dont like israel, thats fine, you probably dont like the israeli attitude, thats ok too.....israel was born not to placate people like you, Not to be the complacent jew, looking for acceptance...I realize you have to find all kinds of stuff to show just how evil the zionists and how they treated other jews so bad (i.e. racists of sort)... unfortuantly to do so you have to twist history

read about Hanna Senesh-i'm sure you'll find a way to twist her into being some kind of monster, but its ok....its nothing new...it started a very long time ago....

and just a fun fact? last year when a the son of a holocaust survivor flew his israeli F-15 over Aushwitz, his mother said it was the absolute proudest day of her life...and she was just one of many survivors bursting with pride that day (oops, i guess they might have been turned in to "zionists".....)

[kayecy]

103. I'll leave this sub-thread to Pelsar & Ken Burch..........n/m

[IDFbunny]

144. If born in a Lebanese refugee camp,

they should be considered Labenese and have all the rights of a Lebanese, including the right to leave the camp and work in the Lebanese economy.

[pelsar]

69. dp

[kayecy]

61. To continue:

To continue:

..this concept of pretending zionists are some kind of mutant jew, just tends to confirm amongst most jews that anti semitism is alive and well, just mutating in to new forms....spare us the intellectual divisions...

Now I really must take issue with you on this one Pelsar...All Zionists may be Jews but all Jews are most certainly not Zionists...Several of my friends call themselves Jewish but they are not Zionists...They do not believe that in the 21st Century it is necessary for any resident of Britain or the US to have the right to re-locate to Israel when a Palestinian whose father was born in the area does not have that right.

Furthermore, I use the term Zionist to differentiate US & British Jewish residents (There are more of them than there are Israeli Jews) who might support the concept of a Jewish homeland in Palestine but in practice have no desire to go there and therefore are of no concern to Palestinians...Only Jews seeking to create facts on the ground (ie Zionists)are of concern to the Palestinians.
.
I apologise if you do not like my use of the word 'Zionist' in this context... I shall be happy to replace it with another word if you can tell me one...'Jews either resident in Israel/Palestine or wanting to re-locate there' is rather clumsy don't you think?
.

[pelsar]

64. zionist and jews...your misunderstand the concept.....

of course there are jews who dont believe in israel, the need for it etc.....and the definitions are plenty..... all of that is nothing more than mere intellectual games played by the western educated elite.....

and of course there are jews who dont believe in this modern age there is a need for jewish nationalism...those same jews were shocked when they kicked out of spain, or when the nazis actually came for them despite their assimilation.

zionism was not designed for them...it was for the more active jew who no longer trusted the world to let them live in peace.....given that it was started in the 1800's they did have a point.....(should i mention, they were living in the modern age.....)

on the ground, where the arabs and jews "play" the arabs dont differentiate between jews, israelis and zionists.... When they are interviewed, in their plays, etc the words are all interchangeable, your subtle differences are also lost on the terrorists in their attacks....(i dont l need to list the jews that were singled out do i?)


btw...you did notice that anti semitism is back on the rise in europe...and of course the jews get blamed for all kinds of pathetic stuff as the economy tanks....and israel, made up of mostly jews, gets blamed for all kinds of things as well.......there is a connection......it may be pathetic, it may be absurd, but its also reality.

anti-semites dont differentiate between zionist and non zionist jews....and it still is alive and well in europe and in the middle east. Israel definitely brings it to the surface and it gets many "riders" along the way for their own various reasons, (anti colonialists, anti western, anti religion,etc) but in the end its comes down to the jews not getting to live as jews in peace (you do know that the initial zionists came as unarmed farmers who had bought the land legally....)

[kayecy]

66. Could it be because there are no non-Zionists resident in Israel?...

...zionism was not designed for them...it was for the more active jew who no longer trusted the world to let them live in peace

So we are agreed... There is a Jewish race spread all over the world, some of whom are Zionists...As I said, I am happy to use a different word if you can supply one.

...on the ground, where the arabs and jews "play" the arabs dont differentiate between jews, israelis and zionists

Could that be because there are no non-Zionists resident in Israel?...You think that 'anti-Zionist' can easily become 'anti-Jew', and you are right...However, that is a risk the Zionists took when they decided to force themselves on the residents of Palestine...You can hardly blame the Palestinians for thinking all Jews must be Zionists.

I still maintain that this conflict is not about Jews...It is about those Jews who decided to force themselves on the residents of Palestine or who now want to maintain that domination...The majority of world-wide Jewry are not a party to this conflict.

[pelsar]

67. they have no choice....

The majority of world-wide Jewry are not a party to this conflict

they are identified with israel whether they like it or not.....thats why the jewish center in argentina was bombed, the jews separated from the non jews on the entebba plane hijacked, the habad center in india attacked etc

sure its not fair to them, they may want no part of it, but the arabs disagree.....and though i dont blame the Palestinians for not being able to separate the zionist from the jews, since i believe that is the "standard".....its the nice assimilated jews in the UK and elsewhere who are kidding themselves.....(the educated intellectual is in the minority here)

like so many jews before them, they believe they are a full member of the community....but somewhere along the line, at sometime sooner or later the ugly head of anti semetism shows up and smacks them in the face....

this conflict is about active jews who no longer decided to be passive....and the passive ones, the ones that try to keep their distance from the zionist jews, will find it impossible (are finding it impossible....-how many times do they have to explain/scream that they are not part of israel and the zionists?...and who actually believes them?

[kayecy]

71. You have not given me a single example of Palestinians targeting Jews as against Zionists...

..like so many jews before them, they believe they are a full member of the community....but somewhere along the line, at sometime sooner or later the ugly head of anti semetism shows up and smacks them in the face....

You are entitled to your opinion that anti-semitism is some form of gene defect or whatever, but try telling Michael Howard of the UK or Joe Lieberman that they should be afraid that anti-semitism will show up and "..smack them in the face."

The majority of world-wide Jewry are not a party to this conflict
they are identified with israel whether they like it or not.

Unfortunate, I agree, but that is human nature and as I said the Zionists who decided to force themselves on the residents of Palestine and those seeking to maintain their domination were/are presumably aware of the likely consequences.

You have not given me a single example of Palestinians targeting Jews as against Zionists, or if you prefer 'Jews either resident in Israel/Palestine or wanting to re-locate there'
.

[pelsar]

76. examples of jews being victims of terror attacks as part of the larger i/p conflict

the I/P conflict is beyond the Palestinians....however if you listen to the Palestinians speak about israel, you will notice they use the word jews as opposed to israeli...they interchange zionist as well. The point is for them, jews, zionists, israelis are all the intermingled....again you may not like it or accept it, or have an excuse for it, but it doesnt change the attitude does it?


jews and israelis being separated from the others at entebbe
jewish community center in argentina
habad center in india**
klinghoffer tossed overboard when the terrorists took over the ship



**Muslim terrorist Asam Kasab, 21, the only Mumbai killer so far caught alive, told Indian police that his group was sent with a specific mission to target Israelis to avenge the Palestinians.---at the jewish habad house

---

Zionists who decided to force themselves on the residents of Palestine..your right, its just a shame that the some of the Palestinians decide to attack the nonviolent zionist farmers as opposed to working with them as others did in many parts of the Palestinian area and prospered to the point where the polls show over 90% would not want to live under the rule of the Palestinians...

the zionists were right in what the future held for them in europe..as history has shown. Furthermore history has also shown that those that chose to work with the zionists, now have longer lives, better health care, (universal), better incomes, and democratic rights*..as opposed to those who decided that the jews immigrating was a bad thing and subsequently decided that violence was the chosen route..it was a dumb idea then and it remains a dumber idea today......

and its not as if the jews pre WWII and post WWII had many choices...they were limited with the JEW quotas being filled up very quickly....

* whats more important to you...living in a country that has democracy as a core value or living in a non democracy but with those of the same genes running the country?

[kayecy]

82. Not for the Palestinians it isn't...They simply want to be left to run their lives ...

the I/P conflict is beyond the Palestinians...

Not for the Palestinians it isn't...They simply want to be left to run their lives in the place their ancestors ran theirs...The only people preventing them from doing so are the Zionists ('Jews either resident in Israel/Palestine or wanting to re-locate there')

However, you are right that Israel's part of the conflict is much wider...Israel seems to go out of its way to collect enemies (Read what the Israeli right-wing are now saying about Obama!) but the Palestinians are not resposible for Israeli politics.

....however if you listen to the Palestinians speak about israel, you will notice they use the word jews as opposed to israeli...they interchange zionist as well. The point is for them, jews, zionists, israelis are all the intermingled....again you may not like it or accept it, or have an excuse for it, but it doesnt change the attitude does it?

As I said, unfortunately that is how human nature tends to react, especially when one is under occupation, but how much of a threat is that to non-Zionists?...Your examples are pretty weak and rather ancient...Israel must have killed far more non-Hammas, non-Fatah Palestinians than ever Palestinians killed non-Zionists.

its just a shame that the some of the Palestinians decide to attack the nonviolent zionist farmers as opposed to working with them as others did in many parts of the Palestinian area

We've already agreed on this one...The conflict is about Nationalim...As a Zionist, you should know how powerful a force nationalism is.
.

[pelsar]

84. The Palestenians are nothing special...

They simply want to be left to run their lives in the place their ancestors ran theirs.


so did the Soux the French, the jews, the brits, the scots, the Poles, the russians etc etc etc.....except the world doesn't always work out so well does it? Zionism was born out of an imperfect world and the Palestinians dont get any special rights thats put them above the worlds imperfections. Did they get screwed? depends how you look at it, for those arabs who stayed, that now live in a liberal democracy, (90% polled say they wont leave for the PA controlled govt), disagree with you......those that left live under corrupt and theocratic arab govts probably agree with you

-----
You seem to believe that the arabs who stayed were wrong for staying and not fighting?-yet it was they who just wanted to run their lives where their ancestors did....and are still doing it today
------

People are always moving around, immigrating and emigrating, wars start and end and start again....The area of Palestine was simply a piece of land that was open to immigration according to the laws of time....and the jews subject to anti semitism started moving in.

The history is actually pretty clear in the general narrative:

I'll give the short version (without the specifics that tend to get blurry)
zionists buy land from absentee landowners and non absentee landowners (legal and normal)
non violent zionists immigrate and work with the locals
(some locals lose their land to the new owners,-return as day laborers)
economies develop, arabs immigrate for work
some arabs attack the jews
jews get armed and fight back

conflict starts, mess begins.....
_____

your right, in that if the jews never came, the arabs in Palestine would probably living their lives under a typical arab dictatorship with limited education, etc but ruled by one with their own genetic make up and no one would care what is done to them (see syria hama). For some who believe nationalism trumps civil rights that is the way it should be (hamas, islamic jihad and many progressives and conservatives), for others democracy and civil rights is far more important.

the jews weren't wrong for immigrating, especially in light of what waited for them in WWII (or are you saying they should have stayed in europe?) and the arabs weren't wrong in resisting

given the events and the present situation, the methods they have been using since the 1920's have been shown to be a complete failure, whereas those that chose to work with the jews enjoy a far better life.....the choices for both people were limited and not ideal, the Palestinians made some poor choices and continue to make poor choices......

life isnt fair, nor will it ever be.....(try explaining "fair" and just to a concentration camp survivor who after the war was put into a Deportation camp for a few years because no country was willing to take them.....)

Post WWII was full of refugees all over the world......i believe just a single group has been refused to restart their lives....and its not because of them (ask the lebanese govt why the Palestinians cant have citizenship for example)

[kayecy]

87. What a fellow you are for double standards...

Zionism was born out of an imperfect world and the Palestinians dont get any special rights thats put them above the worlds imperfections.

What a fellow you are for double standards...Jews get killed by Nazis and you (rightly) complain....Palestinians get killed by Israelis and you simply state they don't get any special rights!

I'll give the short version (without the specifics that tend to get blurry)
zionists buy land from absentee landowners and non absentee landowners (legal and normal)
........
........

Here is a more accurate version:
Zionists persuade Balfour to give them a chunk of the Middle East that was not his to give.
Zionist buy land from absentee landlords who had previously grabbed it in contravention to the Ottoman laws on Musha' land.
Zionists immigrate and work on the land after first kicking of the Palestine peasants who had worked the land for centuries.
Zionists (some) attack arabs, some Palestinians attack Jews (Remember the 1920 Palin Report conclusions?..."That the Zionist ....... are largely responsible for the present crisis."

[pelsar]

90. one standard....

nazis killed the jews, russian killed the jews etc I dont complain.....the jews worked out a solution using the tools (politically) that was available at the time and militarily that provided a solution...

Some Palestinians didnt like the jews immigrating and used methods that proved to be a failure and keep using the same methods despite the fact that they keep failing, they have "allies" that have not helped them in the least, but have only made their situation much worse....its up to them to find a solution, just as the jews did.....

playing the victim doesnt get one anywhere....

_____

as far as Balfour etc, those were the rules of the time, hence it was all legal...including buying the land...and the Palin report?...yes it blames the jews for being there as if the arabs simply had no choice but to attack- i think the russians and nazis had the same claim, the mere existence of the jew is in itself an instigation.

___

there are some simple facts that i realize you dont like:
the land was bought, as per the law of the time
the existing politics were employed by the zionists
the zionists in the beginning were unarmed

in fact what the zionists did was within the confines of the politics and laws of that period....so what exactly did they do wrong?
(besides stopping the attempt at genocide in 48-are you going to justify that as well?)

the arabs who stayed within israel enjoy the ability to live where their ancestors lived, live in liberal democracy, the only one in the region. are they wrong for staying?

your argument is simple: nationalism and being ruled by a member of ones own tribe is most important, more important than civil rights, more important than lives......sounds like a fanatic conservative doesnt it

[kayecy]

96. Amazing!....Let me get this straight....

nazis killed the jews, russian killed the jews etc I dont complain.....the jews worked out a solution using the tools (politically) that was available at the time and militarily that provided a solution...

Amazing!....Let me get this straight....You have no complaint about the Holocaust????

..your argument is simple: nationalism and being ruled by a member of ones own tribe is most important.

Errrr......Have you been smoking the weed?....I thought that was part of the Zionist credo?.....I don't think nationalism is important, but apparently Zionists and militant Palestinians do.
.

[pelsar]

106. in fact no i dont have a complaint...

one has complaints when one has different expectations....anti semitism comes in all shapes and sizes, be it russian pogroms, arab blood libels, western leftest comparing israelis/jews to nazis..

hitler just took the concept to a new level, and western govts didnt interfer... the idea that the jew cannot depend upon other govts to defend him/her was simple brought out much clearer. The zionist credo is part nationalism part democracy, civil rights with some religious culture sprinkled on it to cause trouble.....

but the "antizionists" or pro Palestinians are not interested in democracy.....they are far more interested in land ownership by those of the proper genetic makeup...civil rights, freedom of the press etc are not a factor (check out how the PA or hamas governs.....). They remind me of khommeni in 79....after the revolution, the first bunch that were hung were the democratic leftest....(useful idiotes). Notice how hams runs gaza.....i cant recall hearing any complaints from the worlds democracies, now that holding hands in the street can be a death sentence.....

[kayecy]

108. What concern is it of yours as to whether Palestinians want democracy, autocracy or whatever?.....

... but the "antizionists" or pro Palestinians are not interested in democracy.....they are far more interested in land ownership by those of the proper genetic makeup

I, and some of my friends are 'anti-Zionists'...We are not the least interested in land ownership...We are primarily concerned at determining what would be a fair and reasonable political solution to this conflict...Whichever way we look at it, the Zionists (for reasons which they no doubt feel are compelling) started the action by flooding Palestine with Jewish immigrants...The Palestinians had and have every right to chose their own form of government...As to genetic make up, don't you think that rather rich coming from an Israeli?..(..law of return and all that!)
.

[pelsar]

111. The type of govt that PA has is crucial.....

if one really is interested in Peace....i.e a long lasting political solution than the Palestinians require a stable govt. To that end, dictatorships etc traditionally require an enemy to keep the population in line. Given the close proximity to israel and the long borders and the history, obviously israel would be the target, which means the attacks would probably continue. Those attacks would then, soon or later have israeli reprisals....

Whereas a democratic govt that in fact takes responsibility for its actions, gets voted in or out as a result of its own competence, will give the Palestinians ownership over their own lives.....that is the crucial factor missing in the conflict, that fact that they are absolved of all responsibility for their actions by so many. (i realize it makes things complicated and ruins the simple solution, but thats real life with real consequences)

That is why the anti zionist should be very interested and putting as much influence as possible to a democratic Palestinian govt. More so, its been shown more than enough times that when one generation "chooses" a dictatorship, the following generation doesnt get a chance to "change it"..so its pretty short sighted to pretend that "the people" have chosen a dictatorship to lead them.

(which is why when "anti zionists" etc mention israeli human right violations, I take it with a "grain of salt", since human rights is being used as a means and is not a principle, as you pointed out.)

As far the genetic make up goes, israel lives with multiple contradictions as govt.....but it does work as an ongoing improving democracy and i for one believe that only democracies infact have a legal right to exist...every other type of govt, that doesnt support civil rights as pillar of its society should not be accepted nor promoted. Its a bit strange to actually believe that a person would support others to live lives where not just they have no civil rights but pretend that even the next generations down the line shouldnt get civil rights as well (dictatorships dont "go away"). I believe its a universal right.....I'm always amazed how "progressives believe some people should actually live without civil rights as a principle).
____

btw, and i dont mean to sound condescending:
Whichever way we look at it, the Zionists (for reasons which they no doubt feel are compelling)

good to read that..the first step in understanding the conflict is to understand that both sides were, from their point of view, morally right, and that aspect has to be accepted: This conflict is not a matter of evil vs good, this is a conflict of conflicting moralities with religion thrown in for "fun." One could "weigh" those moralities, given them a scale (saving lives vs land ownership, etc) but that would be culturally oriented and hence should not be used.....)

[kayecy]

113. Rubbish - I know of no progressive who believes that....

...if one really is interested in Peace....i.e a long lasting political solution than the Palestinians require a stable govt. To that end, dictatorships etc traditionally require an enemy to keep the population in line.

After Bush's disastrous attempts to impose democracy on Iraq and Afghanistan I would have thought you would realise that the only way to achieve democracy in a developing country is encouragement and persuasion by a friendly power...After 100 years of conflict, Israel's strategy seems to have failed on all counts...Even Israeli democracy doesn't look too good when it produces a Foreign minister like Lieberman.

...every other type of govt, that doesnt support civil rights as pillar of its society should not be accepted

So what do you propose? - A few wars to achieve regime-change in Burma, Saudi, Egypt etc?...After the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan I would have thought you would be a bit more pragmatic.

I'm always amazed how "progressives believe some people should actually live without civil rights as a principle).

Rubbish - I know of no progressive who believes that....What we do believe is that Zionists, The Israeli Government or whatever, have no right to use military might to force people to do what Israel thinks is good for them.
.

[pelsar]

115. lots of progressives say: they chose that govt, its their choice....

we shouldnt interfere...as if the second and third generations in Iran have no problem having little girls hung for having "big mouths". etc....well, It was their choice (same goes for the taliban i guess as well, how about Pot Pal, hitler etc.....)

i didnt mention bush now did i?.....my proposal actually is quite simple: the UN be modified to have two levels: democratic nations and non democratic natons. Non democratic nations do not get to sit on the boards of Human rights commissions in order to make a mockery out of them etc. A clear division of govts that promote civil rights and those that dont. (those that dont, get nothing but pehaps a few crumbs....)

not too complicated and i would think every progressive would accept that idea....

Actually, and i'm sure this really bothers you:
After 100 years of conflict, Israel's strategy seems to have failed on all counts...Even Israeli democracy doesn't look too good when it produces a Foreign minister like Lieberman.

Israel's democracy is stronger than ever, with muslim arabs now joining the elite army units, israel has quiet relations with several arab regimes......As far as Lieberman goes, the arab countries in general have no real problem with him and other guys on the right as they can produce concrete results (egypts treaty, gaza, etc). Besides thats how democracies work, sometimes the right gets power, sometimes the left....its a good thing

sorry to disappoint you.

The Israeli Government or whatever, have no right to use military might to force people to do what Israel thinks is good for them.
I assume you think the same of hamas since they use force to force Palestinians to do what they think.....so i would guess you would be equally upset with them. (Hamas took over by force in case you forgot)


but let me get this straight: even though its clear that a non democratic Pa govt will not bring a solution (see hamas for an example), you believe thats a secondary issue....hands off, so to speak.

[kayecy]

116. Yes, but I expect better of a western democracy....clearly you do not...

...As far as Lieberman goes, the arab countries in general have no real problem with him and other guys on the right .....sorry to disappoint you.

It doesn't disappoint me at all me....You are missing my whole point....If Israelis want Lieberman then that is fine by me...I have no right to interfere never mind use military might to force you to chose someone less racist.

..my proposal actually is quite simple: the UN be modified to have two levels: democratic nations and non democratic natons. Non democratic nations do not get to sit on the boards of Human rights commissions in order to make a mockery out of them etc. A clear division of govts that promote civil rights and those that dont.

A very reasonable proposal....But would it stop Israel taking unilateral military action against other peoples?

The Israeli Government or whatever, have no right to use military might to force people to do what Israel thinks is good for them.
I assume you think the same of hamas since they use force to force Palestinians to do what they think.....so i would guess you would be equally upset with them. (Hamas took over by force in case you forgot)

Yes, but I expect better of a western democracy....clearly you do not...Do you really believe that even a democracy has the right to use military might to force another people to do what it alone thinks is right for them....Isn't that for your 'Democratic UN' to decide?

[pelsar]

119. Your right i dont expect 'better" out of a democracy...

i expect the same out of anybody: Hamas understands full well the concept of human rights, they may not put them very high on their priorities list, but they understand them.

Would such a division stop the israeli military?...as much it would stop the US military, the UK military, Frances military, Russias military, Turkeys military...

are you singling out israel because they are somehow "special"?

i understand that your use of "unilateral" is dependant upon pretending that kassams, pipe bombs, infiltration attempts to kill people, dont count-here i disagree with you. A good govts job is to protect its people before they get killed, not after.

____

Do you really believe that even a democracy has the right to use military might to force another people to do what it alone thinks is right for them....Isn't that for your 'Democratic UN' to decide

yes and no.... especially when it comes to jews...the world has a very poor record when it comes to jews, and i really dont see a change in the attitude either, hence israel alone is responable for israel and should not be trusting some intl govt institution.

the solution lies in one standard; That the Palestinians are responsible for their actions and the consequences that follow, like all "democratic" govts. But your right, i dont have a double standard and dont think "less" of the Palestinians. I expect them and israel to understand their actions and take responsibility for them....as equals

[kayecy]

121. It never ceases to surprise me how often Israel compares itself with Hamas and Arab dictaterships...

Your right i dont expect 'better" out of a democracy...

It never ceases to surprise me how often Israel compares itself with Hamas and Arab dictaterships...I would be insulted if anyone compared Britain to them.

...are you singling out israel because they are somehow "special"?

They are doing that very effectively themselves...How does a signatory to the UN Charter explain how it was justified in its massive bombing of Lebanon? (Article 2....All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.)....Don't tell me - It was self-defense against a rag-tag group of militants.

Q..Do you really believe that even a democracy has the right to use military might to force another people to do what it alone thinks is right for them.......A..yes and no.... especially when it comes to jews

Ah, the infamous Israeli strategy of ambiguity....YES when it refers to Israel...NO when it refers to other peoples.

[pelsar]

123. why one standard is essential

the concept of one standard is that everyone is playing on the same field...your double standard means any agreement between two groups that dont have the same standard means the agreement is useless, since the "second standard" means they dont have to abide by it

an agreement means the expectations are the same. (it never ceases to amaze me how those who promote double standards dont see just how racist the concept is-those people simply cant understand....)

I'm not comparing israel to hamas, i'm stating that any agreement with them, must mean the same to both sides, that means one standard. I believe they actually understand this and dont have to be treated like retarded children.

The double standard explains why hamas can try to kill jews daily and the world yawns (except the israelis under attack) israel shoots a few missiles and the outcrys start. Thats why the double standard is unacceptable, israelis shouldnt have to live with the daily attacks, In fact it would be downright stupid for israel to agree to the double standard and let the PA/hamas shoot kassams and grads on TA/Ashkelon/ etc, and not do anything to stop it

______
Actually the US and the UK have killed and maimed far more people than israel has...isnt the US still using its predators to execute people these days? i can still recall that the UK actually sunk a WWII battleship in the atlantic during the falkands war (how many killed?).....

shall we compare? ........
__

and i wasnt being ambiguous...no country should trust its defense to the UN, especially not israel....(the human rights commission is a fine example of the UN at work.......)
______

[kayecy]

124. But there isn't a level playing field is there?....

...the concept of one standard is that everyone is playing on the same field...

But there isn't a level playing field is there?..Israel is an advanced western state....The Palestinians don't even have a state... They are under occupation...They have been crucified economically...The Gaza residents are suffering under an almost total Israeli blockaded with devastated homes and made ill with raw sewage...When is Israel going to restore a level playing field so we can have one standard for everyone?

Actually the US and the UK have killed and maimed far more people than israel has...

I can't speak for the US but I believe that since 1948 the UK has managed to limit the deaths of foreign combatants to a total of about 2,000 (including the sinking of the Belgrano)with negligible civilian deaths... How does that compare with Israel?...1,500 in Gaza plus 1,000 in Lebanon and that's not counting the 1948, 56, 67, 73 and assorted Lebanese wars or the intefadas...Lets have a guess how many civilians Israel has killed....3,000?..4,000?...not counting the deliberate breaking of arms etc......Not bad for a small country that takes no part in international security actions!

Care to produce some figures to back up that ridiculous statement?

[pelsar]

126. so the Palestenians are 'retarded" because they dont have a state?

one standard means one has the same expectations from different groups. I doesnt really matter if one person is rich, the other poor, one a landowner and the other not. Each has responsibilities when they make a commitment.- your double standard removes that commitment.

of course do you actually believe that the Palestenians and hamas etc believe that they are a "lesser people" and cant live up to western democracies standards?.... i would suggest that, they would laugh at you for even suggesting such a thing, and explain to you that "western democracys values are so sub standard that its is they that must try harder to reach their standards....

(hamas is in fact made up very intelligent people who should be respected for their plans, expectations and actions, knowing full well what they're doing, they are not, some kind of morons or children that need to be "helped" as per your double standard

When is Israel going to restore a level playing field thats the wrong question, the question is when are you going to respect the Palestenian enough to respect their decisions as their responsabiity?

___

i believe in your numbers you forgot when Britan was attacked in the 40's.....(I believe the attacks on the UK are relevant since, they're are attacks on israel

you might want to compare, number of kassams/katushas/grads on israel, with the israeli responses, to german bombs on london and the UKs response.....that would probably be an appropriate comparison....

[kayecy]

130. You seriously think that Israel has no advantage by being a state ......

Pelsar:

...so the Palestenians are 'retarded" because they dont have a state?

You seriously think that Israel has no advantage by being a state and thus able to defend itself in the UN?...You think the US would support you in your blockade of Gaza if Palestine was a UN member state?...Palestine can't even take you to the International Court of justice because it is not a state.

...i believe in your numbers you forgot when Britain was attacked in the 40's........(I believe the attacks on the UK are relevant since, they're are attacks on israel)

I am sure your knowledge of Israeli history is better than mine, but as far as I am aware, Britain had almost withdrawn from Israel by the time Israel came into existence in 1948...There was a small incident with Spitfires over the Sinai but did that lead to any Israeli deaths?
.
.
.
.
For shira: Please see my replies to your message in your "running out of solutions thread".....Message 16

[pelsar]

135. didnt say israel isnt stronger...

nor that it has many advantages in being a state...what does that have to do with expectations?

If you have two standards, a lower one for the Palestinians, how then do you expect them to fulfill their obligations?...or perhaps you dont?

i still dont understand why they get a lower standard?.......why is that? (i have no idea what having a state has anything to do with what one expects from their society)

___

my comparison of deaths was germany bombing Britan and the UK reprisals
vs israel being attacked and its reprisals....

[kayecy]

137. The West condemns Hamas and places sanctions on it...The West should treat Israel exactly the same..

Your ‘double standard’ conversation started with the following:

Kayecy: The Israeli Government or whatever, have no right to use military might to force people to do what Israel thinks is good for them.
Pelsar: I assume you think the same of hamas since they use force to force Palestinians to do what they think.....so i would guess you would be equally upset with them.

I replied:...“Yes, but I expect better of a western democracy....”

That is not a double standard, simply a statement of what one can expect...Both Israel and Hamas have been using military might to force people to do what they think is good for them...The standard should be that that is not acceptable behavior for either Israel or Hamas...The West condemns Hamas and places sanctions on it...The West should therefore condemn and place sanctions on Israel exactly the same way.


Can I take it that you agree with that single standard being applied to both parties?

[pelsar]

141. definitely one standard...as per the rule of law...

and i do prefer the western version of the laws

which basically state that self defense, non intentional murder etc are not the same a premeditated murder......
_____

Hamas and friends were and and have once again started to fire missiles into israeli towns with the intention of killing as many people as they can (remember the busses being blown up?.....and they have stated that, that this their intention..

israel, doesnt fire missiles or bombs gaza looking to kill people randomly.....(and before you answer, please learn about the limitation of artillery fire, aiming devices, human errors and the character of explosions. This is based on the assumption that preventing kassams from being fired is "permitted" in your view.

the rule of law in the west differentiates between the two and so do i...hence the difference between hamas and israel.

I understand that you may not like that law/rule when it relates to israel, but i suspect you believe in the differentiation in civil life (as in a car accident causing deaths vs a multiple murder who plans his actions)

[kayecy]

142. Ahhhh.....But whose law?.......Let's look at a comparison.........

...definitely one standard...as per the rule of law...

Ahhhh...But whose law?.....Israeli occupation law?...Hamas law?... or simply what any humane person would consider right?

Years of occupation by Hamas - Nil
Years of occupation by Israel - 40

Civilians killed or maimed by Hamas - probably in the 100s
Civilians killed or maimed by Israel - probably in the 1,000s

Civilians subject to closures, searches, road-blocks arbitrary arrests by Hamas - probably in the 100s
Civilians subject to closures, searches, road-blocks arbitrary arrests by Israel - probably in the 1000s

No. of civilians blockade and refused even Pizzas by Hamas - Nil
No. of civilians blockade and refused even Pizzas by Israel - The whole population of Gaza

No. of cluster bomblets and phosphor bombs used on civilians by Hamas - Nil
No. of cluster bomblets and phosphor bombs used on civilians by Israel - millions

No. of suicide-bombs by Hamas - A few hundred
No. of suicide bombs by Israel - Nil

No. of bombs/rockets fired by Hamas - probably a few thousand.
No. of bombs/rockets fired by Israel - probably a few thousand.


Conclusion - Both have a disgusting contempt for human life...They should both be condemned.

[pelsar]

146. thats not law...thats an emotional response.....

laws are based upon principles not quantities and not emotional responses.

the kid in a car who makes a mistake and hits a bus that then rolls down a cliff killing 30 people is not the same as the person who ties people up then shoots them in the back of the head one by one.
___

actually i would argue that hamas is in fact an occupying force.....all govts that dont have a working democracy are occupiers, no matter what their genetic makeup is....(I get the impression from you, that culture and genes are more important than civil rights etc)

____

im afraid you know very little about how much effort the IDF actually puts in before using violence....(individuals will always be a loose cannon-i'm referring to the system). And you like to avoid the environment, that makes it easy to have a list and get an emotional response:

example:

over 6,000 missiles from gaza over 3years landing randomly in israeli cities and villages, vs minor israeli responses that were ineffective and one major one (after hamas declared the Hunda off) that appears to have had an effect.....perhaps you call that disgust for human life, the reality for israelis and gazans is that now both live without missiles falling on their heads...conclusion: hamas should have stopped shooting kassams years ago. (now they just have to learn to be smarter and get egypt to open up their border so they can import and export more....)

[kayecy]

147. I find it completely inexcusable that the IDF have withheld the locations of cluster bombs.....

over 6,000 missiles from gaza over 3years landing randomly in israeli cities and villages, vs minor israeli responses that were ineffective

Compare:
Hamas 6,000 missiles with the over one millions bomblets scattered over south Lebanon by the IDF in the 24 hours before Israel declared a cease-fire.
Result:
300 civilians killed over the last two years, including many children who see them as toys.

...im afraid you know very little about how much effort the IDF actually puts in before using violence....(individuals will always be a loose cannon-i'm referring to the system)

You are correct...I find it completely inexcusable that the IDF refused to give mine-clearing agencies the locations where they dropped the cluster bombs until a few days ago...What excuse have the IDF leadership given for such an inhuman action?

Your one-sided view.....perhaps you call that disgust for human life, the reality for israelis and gazans is that now both live without missiles falling on their heads..

View from the other side (and the rest of the world):...Israel continues its blockade of Gaza, restricting aid agencies from delivering re-construction materials and food. (even Pizzas according to John Kerry)


I’m disappointed that you seem only to see one side of this conflict and completely fail to see what started it.

[pelsar]

150. actually ...

all of the last actions of the lebanon II war in the last few days by israel were criminal my eyes....but that is not the discussion...

please..dont go into nonsense:
I’m disappointed that you seem only to see one side of this conflict and completely fail to see what started it

how about continued attacks from hizballa in lebanon from when the IDF returned to israel and the UN confirmed the 100% withdrawl?..and the multiple kidnapping attempts across the intl border as well as shooting attacks over the year?....thats what got the lebanon II war started (know your history)

but you seemed to have skipped out on the discussion:
rule of law and consistency i believe was the subject, ..but since we are now in "lebanon":.....do you believe hizballa is an illegal organization now that they occupy s. lebanon, have their own militia, have areas were the lebanese army is not allowed (they actually shot down a lebanese helicopter) or are private militas that attack neighboring states legal in your eyes...and is this just for lebanon or all countries?

[kayecy]

151. Do you agree that the IDF have been criminal in withholding cluster-bomb locations?..........

...all of the last actions of the lebanon II war in the last few days by israel were criminal my eyes...

Good...In my opinion, just about all of Hamas's actions over the last few years were criminal.

Now we have stated our opinions on Israel's Lebanon war and Hamas's suicide-bombing, has the IDF produced any excuse for withholding the cluster-bomb data?...Do you agree that the IDF have been criminal over the last two years in that regard?

....how about continued attacks from hizballa in lebanon from when the IDF returned to israel and the UN confirmed the 100% withdrawl?..

Quite irresponsible....How about Israel's continued over-flying of Lebanon in flagrant disregard of the UN cease-fire resolution which Israel, but not Hezbollah, signed?

but you seemed to have skipped out on the discussion:
rule of law and consistency i believe was the subject.

Nope...The subject was double-standards...All forms of double-standards, particularly when used to defend Israel or Hamas.

....do you believe hizballa is an illegal organization now that they occupy s. lebanon, have their own militia, have areas were the lebanese army is not allowed (they actually shot down a lebanese helicopter) or are private militas that attack neighboring states legal in your eyes...and is this just for lebanon or all countries?

I believe in democracy...If Hezbollah has no democratic legitimacy then I would hope the democratic government of Lebanon would enforce its authority...As to the 'legality' of Hezbollah, its militias, etc...that is a matter for the Lebanese government.

[pelsar]

152. withholding the cluster bomb data...

i have no idea why they are doing it and whats to gain....and i would put that in the criminal area.

but why the "if" about Hizballa.....they actually shot down a lebanese helicopter, S. Lebanon is a no go area for Lebanese police etc...the rule of law is not the Lebanese gov but hizballa..

and you write "if" Hezballa has no legitimacy" Has s. lebanon been declared a state or a semi independent region by lebanon..did i miss that? You claim you believe in democracy...i dont know of any democracies that allow for independent militias to rule areas of the main city as well as large areas of the countryside....do you have some examples? (i doubt it)

that sure is a strange democracy...where that state has no say in what happens in parts of its own country (i guess Hizballas attacking israel is also "ok" with you since they are defending something or other)

which explains the israel overflights...which i am for. If not for those flights (which hurt no one) there would have been missiles falling on Tel Aviv....interesting moral dilemma for you: non violent overflights taking pictures vs missiles landing indiscriminately on a large city.

let me guess....you believe the overflights are far worse and morally israel should stop them and if and when the missiles fly again (as hizballa has promised) it will be the lesser of the evils even if people are killed.-because you expect better of israel and hizballa are dumb, so they are allowed to kill israelis indiscriminately (is this a gene thing?)

or..perhaps Lebanon should take assert its authority, disarm Hiaballa....end of problem.....
_____

you arguments lack a consistency...democracies do not allow for independent militias to forcibly take parts of the country from the central govt. Its clear you want hizballa to be free to attack israel on some pretense...though i have no idea why. Anybody really interested in peace would be screaming at the Lebanese govt to take back their country from iranian and syrian backed hizballa and enjoy a quiet border with israel....as does syrian, jordan and egypt (simple proofs-dont attack israel, an you get peace)

[kayecy]

154. So you think a formal UN cease-fire allows Israel to chose which bits to ignore?...

...i have no idea why they are doing it and whats to gain....and i would put that in the criminal area.

Good.....We are beginning to see things in the same light...The IDF's delay in producing cluster-bomb data is criminal.

...and you write "if" Hezballa has no legitimacy"

I used the word 'if' because I was not sure whether Hezbollah had yet become a legal party in Lebanese politics...I am quite happy for you to ignore it.

...which explains the israel overflights...which i am for.

So you think a formal UN cease-fire allows Israel to chose which bits it abides by and which it ignores?...If you are for invading your neighbour's sovereign airspace, don't be surprised when yet another Lebanon war starts...No it is not a 'gene-thing', it's common-sense...There again, Israel has shown remarkably little common-sense over the last 40 years or so.

...you arguments lack a consistency

You have made several personal accusations during this discussion but this charge is going too far...I really must ask you to substantiate it...Ignoring the word 'if', in what way do my arguments lack consistency?...A couple of examples will do fine.

[pelsar]

155. hizballa....

you make some claim as if they have some legitimacy..and then claim you are for democracy.

how any democratic state have an armed militia funded by foreign govts... attack a country and have any kind of legitimacy?

--------
A simple look at the history of the various israeli borders and its clear how to have peaceful borders with israel: all one has to do is check out syria, jordan and egypt;
its that simple

and then compare those borders to lebanon and gaza..and its clear where the problem lies....


We have a fundamental differences: i use one standard and believe all societies have to live up to that standard....you have multiple standards, based on some vague power balance. I believe govts that are not democracies are in effect occupation govts and are not legit....and worse are 'non state actors" hizballa" which are extremely dangerous and should not be supported by any means, your vague on these issues even though they are anti democratic anti civil rights anti freedom of expression.

and furthermore i believe israel has done an incredible job against all odds, they created a democratic liberal govt in a region that knows nothing about it, while being under attack both physically and verbally.... they've used their limited resources wisely to create a country that has western standards of government.....and a defense force that is constantly attempting to improve and limit the damage to its innocent neighbors despite the inherent difficulties and limitations.

Probably the biggest difference is that i believe the Palestinians are responsible for the Palestinians and it is up to them to figure out how the want to live in the future and figure out how to get there....

[pelsar]

157. classic example of the double standard...

and why its so dangerous to some people:

the agreement with the UN etc was that they were going to stop the smuggling and attacks from hizballa as well as disarm them (if i recall correctly) of course no one took those conditions seriously....

however israel was expected to abide by the agreement.....

first of all, why even bother with an agreement if we all know that hizballa, lebanon, iran and the UN or not going to abide by their part at all?

more so your saying israel shouldnt do recon flighs...great idea, so that when hizballa does decide to shoot their "illegal" rockets at israel, they might actually have time to launch them an terrorize TA and randomly kill people.

thats why the double standard is unacceptable. If, lebanon, the UN can keep the missiles from Hizballa, then its up to israel at the minimum to know where they are to destroy them if and when the time comes..thats what responsible govts do.

[kayecy]

158. Now can you offer me a better example of me being 'inconsistent'?.....

Pelsar:

....hizballa....you make some claim as if they have some legitimacy..and then claim you are for democracy.

I made no claim...I merely said Hezbollah's legitimacy was a matter for the Lebanese government.

....A simple look at the history of the various israeli borders and its clear how to have peaceful borders with israel: all one has to do is check out syria, jordan and egypt;
its that simple

That simple eh?...Take Israel's eastern border with the West Bank...What have we?...Occupation for the last 40 years....Some peace!

....We have a fundamental differences: i use one standard and believe all societies have to live up to that standard....you have multiple standards

When will you learn that saying something over and over does not make it true?..I thought we were discussing verifiable facts?

....and a defense force that is constantly attempting to improve and limit the damage to its innocent neighbors despite the inherent difficulties and limitations.

You have already agreed the IDF have been criminal...

....Probably the biggest difference is that i believe the Palestinians are responsible for the Palestinians and it is up to them to figure out how the want to live in the future and figure out how to get there....

There you go again making assumptions!....Whenever have I said "Palestinians are not responsible for Palestinians"?....Why not read what I write and instead of putting two and two together and making 10, simply ask what my opinion is?

....the agreement with the UN etc was that they were going to stop the smuggling and attacks from hizballa as well as disarm them (if i recall correctly) of course no one took those conditions seriously....

Both sides were expected to abide by the UN documents...Both sides have broken their agreement and both sides should be sanctioned...Where is the double standard there?

Now can you offer me a better example of me being 'inconsistent'?

[pelsar]

162. let me correct myself...

yes you said that Hizballa is an internal matter.....that i believe is "placing ones principles on hold:

either one believes in democracy, its rules and its application or not....By saying its an internal matter for the Lebanese govt, your saying that all non state actors are internal matters and "off limits"......can we apply this to all countries that have militias that take over parts of a country, terrorize the inhabitants, attack other countries....You claim consistency.

___

Compare the borders:
why in your opinion are the borders of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria quiet whereas Lebanons is not? Why does israel do recon flights over lebanaon and not over syria, jordan or egypt? ( this is not about the Palestinians.....)

________

I wrote that specific actions of the IDF can be criminal, just as specific acts of soldiers and people can, the IDF as govt body is not criminal. Its policies were and remain one of balancing protecting the citizens of israel and limiting the damage to the Palestinians and others.
_____

as far as the agreement goes in Lebanon, no, hizballa was not expected to live up to the agreement, no one realistically expected them to and within days, the it was explained to the UN troops by Hizballa what their real job is-stay out of their way as the missiles were imported. I dont believe the UN complained about the "new rules"

Let me see if I understand, this is based on the concept that there are consequences for ones actions or inactions:
You believe that israel should not have the recon flights while hizballa rearm, if and when they decide to shoot those missiles and israel cant stop them (if they abide by the agreement), this will be the moral thing to do, even if it requires Tel Aviv be bombarded and israelis killed (as nasralla claimed he would and tried-did i get that right?
____________

didnt you make it clear that you have a double standard? that you expect "more" out of israel?....that translates into expecting less out of the Palestenians...doesnt it?

[kayecy]

164. In the past, Israel forces have put civilians up against a wall and executed them ....

..you said that Hizballa is an internal matter.....that i believe is "placing ones principles on hold:

No more than you are placing your own principles on hold...I am merely being pragmatic...I am not prepared to encourage a military attack on Lebanon for the sake of my principles...What do you do?...Publish your opinions of Hezbollah?.... Encourage your government to take military action?...Judging by recent history, whatever action one encourages is unlikely to be more successful than my pragmatism.

...You claim consistency.

I most certainly do...I apply the same test to all militias...Can you show me where I have not done so?

I don’t like militias, they are usually un-democratic and often kill lots of people, but history shows that direct military intervention by a foreign power is unlikely to succeed and will almost certainly result in many deaths.

..why in your opinion are the borders of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria quiet whereas Lebanons is not?

Could it be that Syria, Jordan and Egypt are autocratic governments and do what suits them rather than listening to the will of their people?...Lebanon and Israel’s eastern borders are with governments who are not autocratic and have at least an element of democratic legitimacy.

..You believe that israel should not have the recon flights while hizballa rearm, if and when they decide to shoot those missiles and israel cant stop them (if they abide by the agreement), this will be the moral thing to do

Be realistic…When has Israel ever failed to respond to what it sees as an attack or even the possibility of an attack?...It decided on a massive invasion of Egypt in 1967 simply because a bellicose Arab dictator fantasized about invading and closed of the Gulf of Aqaba...Besides, Israel was carrying out illegal over-flights of Lebanon long before the last Lebanon war but it didn’t stop the war or a rain of rockets on Israel.

Question for you: If Netanyahu decides to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, will you support or condemn him?

...didnt you make it clear that you have a double standard? that you expect "more" out of israel?....that translates into expecting less out of the Palestenians...doesnt it?

I am not the one applying double standards....I expect Israel to follow western standards and concepts of humanity...No more…No less..I also hold Hamas to those same standards but being a realist I don’texpect them to achieve those standards any time soon…

In the past, Israel forces have put civilians up against a wall and executed them (47 at Kafr Qasem)...I hope such an act would be impossible today...I hope that one day, Hamas will also not kill civilians.

[pelsar]

166. a bit off topic...but relevant..

you dont know much about the psych of israelis....your claiming that israel invaded egypt in 67 just because Nasser fantasized about invading israel (you've read his mind or your just guessing?).....i assume you realize that much of israel in 67 was made up of concentration camp survivors, and their relatives...who also lived through the attempted "wipe israel off the map in 48" as well, not to mention hitlers fantasies in the 1930's.......

you honestly expect israelis to ignore the threats of "wiping you off the map" and pretend that they really dont mean it?....I understand that the history lesson of hitler and the 48 war etc mean little to you, but i'm just curious why you believe israelis should ignore such threats?

[kayecy]

173. If Netanyahu decides to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, will you support or condemn him?....

Pelsar:

your claiming that israel invaded egypt in 67 just because Nasser fantasized about invading israel (you've read his mind or your just guessing?)…… but i'm just curious why you believe israelis should ignore such threats?

The general Israeli population might have felt threatened but that was due to Israel propaganda...Look at what Israeli leaders have said about the Egyptian threat…They knew there was no danger to Israel.

General Matitiahu Peled:
… I am sure that our General Staff never told the government that the Egyptian military threat represented any danger to Israel or that we were unable to crush Nasser’s army,

… To claim that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel’s existence not only insults the intelligence of anyone capable of analysing this kind of situation.......

Menachim Begin:
… Egyptian troop concentrations, he contended, “do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

Yitzhak Rabin:
…“I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”



However, as you say, interesting as 1967 is, it is somewhat off topic…Getting back to the following question which I asked in my previous message:

Question for you: If Netanyahu decides to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, will you support or condemn him?

I am curious to how you will handle this situation which is hardly hypothetical!
.

[pelsar]

177. israelis must be really really dumb...they just dont get that nassar was joshing with them...

It decided on a massive invasion of Egypt in 1967 simply because a bellicose Arab dictator fantasized about invading and closed of the Gulf of Aqaba

firs there is the mere fact that closing a countries port is considered internationally as a "act of war".

nothing "fuzzy about that" is there?

second and what i found really amusing. Shucks Nasser really didnt mean anything by his words about destroying israel, he was just kiddin.....dumb israelis took him seriously. I guess he didnt realize that israelis didnt 'get the joke.".

btw, the israelis were even in dumber in 73 werent they? in 73, they though the Egyptians were in fact just "joshin" with them and actually did attack!!.

boy sure is confusing isnt it...say your going to destroy israel declare war (close their port) and NOT mean it, dont say much in 73 and do attack....or perphap the 48 version....say your going to destroy and DO attack....i must say this is all rather confusing isn't it?

we could take Nassrallas version...say your going bomb israeli cities and then proceed to bomb israeli cities.....i guess thats confusing in that he threatens to do it and then one day later in the future, he actually does it!!!

in case you didnt notice, not a whole lot is certain when war starts......i guess you didnt know that israel was fully mobilzed in 67, for a month or two, with no oil coming in their port, which means the israeli economy was at a standstill-that could not have been kept up by israel and it was all because of Nassers just "playing with them."-and doing a good job to.

but i guess in some views...israel should just do what the german jews did....put their faith in the international community....didnt the UN leave the sinai in 67 at Nassars request (but he was just foolin with israel wasnt he....)
____

some corrections:
Could it be that Syria, Jordan and Egypt are autocratic governments and do what suits them rather than listening to the will of their people?.

i would love to see anything, i repeat anything that even hints that the syrian people, egyptian or jordan want their govts to attack israel....anything besides a wishful belief for it- if not we'll just put it down to religion: that you believe it, with nothing concrete to back it up.

.Besides, Israel was carrying out illegal over-flights of Lebanon long before the last Lebanon war but it didn’t stop the war or a rain of rockets on Israel.

recon flights dont stop wars, what they did was tell the IDF where the big missiles were that were aimed at Tel Aviv and which were destroyed in the first day.......according to your belief, as i understand it, is that it would have been far more moral for israel not to fly over , not know where the missiles were and when the time came (as Nassralla promised) just take them as they landed in Tel Aviv randomly.....did i get that right?

and more so, Nassaralla has "repromised to attack Tel Aviv and even though he has already attacked israeli cities randomly you STILL believe israel should not know where those missiles are (using non violent recon flights) so that when he decides to do what he has already done-it would be the moral thing to do, to have israelis terrorized (actions and non actions have consequences)....did i get that right?
____

I"ll get back later about Iran.

[kayecy]

179. But Nasser only fooled the Israel population...He didn’t fool Israel's generals...

....firs there is the mere fact that closing a countries port is considered internationally as a "act of war".

True...but most civilized states don’t go to war and cause lots of deaths until they have tried every other alternative...The Straights of Tiran were closed on May 23 1967…Israel attacked Egypt on June 5th...

Try telling Americans that the Japanese pre-emptive attack on Pearl harbor was justified in view of the US blockade on Japan’s oil supplies…

.... second and what i found really amusing. Shucks Nasser really didn't mean anything by his words about destroying israel, he was just kiddin.....dumb israelis took him seriously. I guess he didnt realize that israelis didnt 'get the joke.".

But Nasser only fooled the Israel population...He didn’t fool Israel's generals...So why did the Israeli generals/politicians decide to go to war?

....i guess you didnt know that israel was fully mobilzed in 67, for a month or two, with no oil coming in their port, which means the israeli economy was at a standstill

Errr....Exactly how much oil was Israel deprived of in 12 days?...

...recon flights dont stop wars, what they did was tell the IDF where the big missiles were that were aimed at Tel Aviv and which were destroyed in the first day.......

I agree, recon flights don’t stop wars, but they may contribute to starting them… Israeli over-flights were no doubt one of the reasons that provoked Hezbollah into kidnapping the IDF soldiers, and thus igniting the 2nd Lebanon war.

... according to your belief, as i understand it, is that it would have been far more moral for israel not to fly over , not know where the missiles were and when the time came (as Nassralla promised) just take them as they landed in Tel Aviv randomly

Again, my belief is nothing like what you ‘understand’ it to be...Do ask before making assumptions…

It is not a question of morals...It is a question of how the stronger power balances the advantages of surveillance intelligence against the risks of provoking a conflict...How it balances intimidating its enemy as against offering him a few ‘carrots’…

Israel’s first Lebanese war and subsequent withdrawal, turned Hezbollah into the powerful and popular force it is today... One would have thought that Israel might have learnt something about the limits of military power from that experience and tried a few ‘carrots’ for a change...(eg Why not evacuate Shebaa Farms area?)

[shira]

180. Nasser fooled people like Yitzak Rabin, who had a nervous breakdown right before the 67 war began

Guess he was one of those dumb Israelis falling for Nasser's threats, huh?

Arab armies from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq actually SURROUNDED the 1948 borders of Israel in the days leading up to the 6-day war, but that shouldn't have scared any Israelis, right?

And let's suppose the Arab armies won in '67.....I would like to read what you believe Arab victory in '67 would have meant for all Israel's Jewish citizens then.

[pelsar]

181. civilized countries? + some corrections

True...but most civilized states don’t go to war and cause lots of deaths until they have tried every other alternative...The Straights of Tiran were closed on May 23 1967…Israel attacked Egypt on June 5th..

EVERY OTHER ALTERNATIVE?...wow..thats some subjective statement if i ever read one:

did the UK "try every alternative" before attacking Argentin's Malvinas....or perhaps the UK isnt very "civilized"
how about the US in vietnam or korea or grenada?.....let scratch the US as a civilized nation
how about France and the UK (and israel) in 56 against egypt...so much for their civilized nations.

lets try some more..Russia, what were the alternatives they used in Georgia, i must have missed reading about them.

how about the reverse..why dont you list for me these "civilized nations"....and their wars where they "tried everything" once attacked (closing a countries port is considered an attack)

or is it a time thing...one must wait a certain amount of time from the initial attack before responding (like the way the UK did in WWII...well, they werent actually attacked by germany were they?)


you might notice that your making up a standard in order to show just how "uncivilized" israel is...you know something, thats probably a good thing, since the "civilized world" hasnt been very civilized to the jews, hence that standard is really not one to live up to....



___

and of course some corrections:
the US had an embargo on japan pre WWII, Japans harbors were not blocked

did you just make this up?
Israeli over-flights were no doubt one of the reasons that provoked Hezbollah into kidnapping the IDF soldiers
i guess so considering that Nassralla never actually mentions the overflghts, hes more into the destroying the zionist entity.....(did you miss those speachs?-or is he just 'joshin with the israelis like nassar?)

and of sheba farms...guess you dont know that its part of syria and syria has not formally given it to Lebanon?-so how could israel give syrian land to lebanon?--is that the standard you writing about?

...and of course why would you let a miltia run a countries foreign affairs (and did Nassralla really say, Hey syria and israel give us the shebba farms and well stop shooting, and threatening and live in peace with the zionist entity----of course you have something to back up this strange land swap from Nassralla, right?

[pelsar]

183. do you mean a carrot like this?

tried a few ‘carrots’ for a change

there is talk of giving to lebanon the village of Ghajar...which is split in half: half in Lebanon, half in Israel...and of course Hizballa wants it...i guess thats one of your carrots..

i take it you actually believe that this will "satisfy hizballa'?

of course the residents in your "carrots" scheme...... i guess what they want is irrelevant?

http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3625697,00.html


Some of Ghajar's residents also retain Syrian citizenship, which was given to them when the village was part of the Quneitra Governorate. Residents are adamant about seeing their village returned to Syria along with the rest of the Golan Heights as part of a future peace agreement between Israel and Syria, and the implementation of UN Resolution 242

http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3625697,00.html




Ghajar sits on the Israel-Lebanon frontier in an area where the boundaries between Syria, Israel and Lebanon are in dispute. The village was captured by Israel from Syria in 1967.
In 2000, after Israel withdrew from south Lebanon, U.N. surveyors put the Israel-Lebanon border in the middle of the village, leaving Israel in control of the southern half.

Israel reoccupied the northern part in its 2006 war with Hizbullah and has remained there after leaving other occupied areas, citing security concerns. Following the war, Israel pledged to withdraw from the northern part of Ghajar but gave no timeline for doing so.
The villagers say they do not want the town to be divided, and would like, for now, to remain under Israeli control. They hope the village will eventually be returned to Syria as part of a future peace deal.

http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/Lebanon/2A2D09547024F0A0C22575B5003DA898?OpenDocument

guess they're not excited about living under Hizballa rule...imagine that

[kayecy]

184. "I"ll get back later about Iran."..................I'm still waiting!

why dont you list for me these "civilized nations"....and their wars where they "tried everything" once attacked (closing a countries port is considered an attack)

Herewith a list of major invasions & occupations of foreign lands since 1945:

Israel 48........ Egypt, Jordan and Syria invade Israel (No occupation)

Korea 52......... N.Korea invades S. Korea

Suez 56.......... Israel invades Egypt followed after 2 days by UK & France.

Hungary 56....... Russia invades Hungary

67 War........... Israel invades Egypt

73 War........... Egypt invades its own territory

Cyprus 74........ Turkey invades Cyprus

Vietnam 75....... N. Vietnam invades S. Vietnam

Afghanistan 79... Russia invades Afghanistan

Vietnam 79....... China invades Vietnam

Iran 80............Iraq invades Iran

Lebanon 82....... Israel invades Lebanon

Falklands 83..... Argentina invades the Falklands

Granada 83...... US invades Granada (115 killed)

Gulf 1 90.........Iraq invades Kuwait

Chechnya 94...... Russia invades Chechnya

Gulf 2 03....... The US/UK/Spain/Australia etc invade Iraq

Lebanon 06....... Israel invades Lebanon

Georgia 08....... Russia invades Georgia

Gaza 09..........Israel invades Gaza

Note how prominent Israel appears and how few western democracies indulge in military invasion… Even you must see that Israel has an abysmal record of invading foreign lands...Most democracies try to pursue extensive diplomacy before the killing starts…Israel seems to prefer military action first then diplomacy if it can’t avoid it.

and of sheba farms...guess you dont know that its part of syria and syria has not formally given it to Lebanon?-so how could israel give syrian land to lebanon?--

I didn’t suggest Israel give Shebaa Farms to anyone…The area is not Israel’s to give…All I suggested was that Israel evacuates the area (preferably in cooperation with Lebanon & Syria)…Whether Lebanon or Syria then takes over the place is a matter for Lebanon and Syria to decide…

So why doesn’t Israel offer to evacuate the area if that is what Nassaralla wants?...It would remove one of Nassralla’s bones of contention with Israel…

To an outsider, Israel seems incapable of doing anything that just might be taken as a sign of weakness…

...there is talk of giving to lebanon the village of Ghajar...which is split in half: half in Lebanon, half in Israel...and of course Hizballa wants it...i guess thats one of your carrots..

It would seem a good thing to do to withdraw from a village which is not inside Israel…Note I said WITHDRAW...What Lebanon, Syria and the villagers decide is up to them...Ghajar seems to be a carrot that would cost Israel nothing...So why has it waited so long before starting to talk about it?...Did it just want to give Nassralla an excuse for his next action?

I"ll get back later about Iran.

I’m still waiting

[pelsar]

185. leaving Ghajar would cost the citizens their rights!!!!

i see the rights of the people of Ghajar mean absolutely nothing to you.....you didnt even mention them....as if them losing their civil rights would change anything on the intl level.

Did it just want to give Nassralla an excuse for his next action?

why on earth do you actually believe Nassralla needs an excuse to attack israel?.....Israel holding syria land is his excuse? I hadnt realize that you gave Nassralla intl position as per the UN-most interesting.....and most interesting off all, why dont you believe Nassralla when he says all of israel must go and that is why he is attacking (do you believe he is lying?)
__________________________

nice list...so how many of those wars had "every other means used before the bullets flew?... not too many..so much for your standard.....if you still think that such a standard exists feel free to put in the corrections with some details...

Israel 48........ Egypt, Jordan and Syria invade Israel (No occupation)...................... NO diplomacy
Korea 52......... N.Korea invades S. Korea................................................. Minimal diplomacy UN/US attacks back ....
Suez 56.......... Israel invades Egypt followed after 2 days by UK & France. ..........almost NO diplomacy used on Egypt
Hungary 56....... Russia invades Hungary.................................................. NO diplomacy
67 War........... Israel invades Egypt.......................... egypt declares war-NO diplomacy ..israel waits about a week to attack
73 War........... Egypt invades its own territory................................................. NO diplomacy
Cyprus 74........ Turkey invades Cyprus................................................. NO diplomacy
Vietnam 75....... N. Vietnam invades S. Vietnam ............................................. NO diplomacy
Afghanistan 79... Russia invades Afghanistan............................................. NO diplomacy
Vietnam 79....... China invades Vietnam.............................................. NO diplomacy
Iran 80............Iraq invades Iran ................................................. NO diplomacy
Lebanon 82....... Israel invades Lebanon............. years of attempts at stopping the katushas/attacks from "fatah land"
Falklands 83..... Argentina invades the Falklands................................................. minimum diplomacy
Granada 83...... US invades Granada (115 killed)................................................. NO diplomacy
Gulf 1 90.........Iraq invades Kuwait ................................................. some diplomacy
Chechnya 94...... Russia invades Chechnya ................................................. NO diplomacy
Gulf 2 03....... The US/UK/Spain/Australia etc invade Iraq ............................................ lots of diplomacy
ebanon 06....... Israel invades Lebanon .................... 6 years of getting various attacks, and no attack by israel....
Georgia 08....... Russia invades Georgia................................................. NO diplomacy
Gaza 09..........Israel invades Gaza........ 6,.000 rockets fired from gaza in to israel before the invasion lots of negotiations

____

please explain how your above list backs your claim of "western countries" use "every available means before killing people." That was your claim. And of course i noticed that you dont like using anything previous to 1945, when western states and cities were actually attacked-something closer to israels situation (of course the western standards used then makes israel look pretty good doesnt it-hence your consistent avoidance of it-sort of like using flexible standards......which btw negates the concept of the standard..either there is one or there isnt, its not "flexible".....or you can use "double standards" which i believe you believe in (i dont)

and i think you confuse "standards with quantity"...

[pelsar]

186. again...the list of countries that use every diplomatic option.....before war..

you made it very clear, that the standard is that countries (western...) use all methods of diplomacy first before they start shooting..

didnt you notice that on your list of wars with western states.....almost no diplmacy was used?..and they attacked places/countries that in fact did not even threaten their own cities!!

is that your western standard?.....attack other countries that dont threaten your cities and dont bother with diplomacy...because thats is what your list shows.. (you keep ignoring 1939-45...that would ruin your thesis wouldn't it-selective use of facts?)
______

this make no sense what so ever:

It would seem a good thing to do to withdraw from a village which is not inside Israel…Note I said WITHDRAW...What Lebanon, Syria and the villagers decide is up to them...Ghajar seems to be a carrot that would cost Israel nothing..

IT WOULD COST THE VILLAGERS THEIR ISRAELI CITIZENSHIP....and some it appears do not want to give it up. If israel withdraws they lose that option.

i though you were supposed to care "about the people" and that they should have a say in who governs them.....
__________

Simple question: Do you even know what Nassralla wants? (as if a "carrot" would change his lifes goals.....-do you actually believe that?)

_______

iran should not be allowed to have a nbomb. Any nation (or person-check your local laws) that continuously threatens to destroy a country (person) is to be considered very dangerous and to be believed. I believe him..do you?

i would like to see a coalition of israel, egypt, saudi arabia, jordan, iraq (force their hands, they're far more fearful of iran than israel).....and have the threat removed.

[kayecy]

188. If Netanyahu attacks Iran was my question...Will you support such an attack?....

.... nice list...so how many of those wars had "every other means used before the bullets flew?... not too many..so much for your standard

Very few…That is exactly my point…Israel places itself on a par with such ‘civilized’ nations as Russia, and Iraq...Have you counted how many western democracies appear in the list?

67 War........... Israel invades Egypt.......................... egypt declares war-NO diplomacy

Have you a reference to Nasser declaring war?... I have only been able to find the following speech:
May 26, Nasser announced: "If Israel embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle against Israel will be a general one and not confined to one spot on the Syrian or Egyptian borders

Note the all important ‘if’.

Egypt did not declare war…It provoked Israel by closing the Straights of Tiran but it was Israel that started the killing…As I said, Israel seems unable to resist attacking foreign lands without warning, especially if failure to attack could just possibly be construed as a sign of weakness.

...please explain how your above list backs your claim of "western countries" use "every available means before killing people." That was your claim

When ‘every available means are used before killing people”, western democracies are often successful in avoiding war by diplomacy (eg the 95/96 China-US-Taiwan crisis), which may account why Israel appears five times on the list of invasions but there is almost no other western democracy...One or two appearances can be excused but for one small state to appear five times!

....which btw negates the concept of the standard..either there is one or there isnt, its not "flexible".....or you can use "double standards" which i believe you believe in (i dont)

I try to judge everyone by the same standards, but since it is impossible to know what Israel would or would not have done before 1945, it seems rather silly to attempt a comparison prior to that date….How do you compare say Germany’s attack on Poland in 1939 with a fantasy attack by Israel on say Syria in 1939….Please, let’s stick to contemporaneous facts and leave fantasy to others.

.... i would like to see a coalition of israel, egypt, saudi arabia, jordan, iraq (force their hands, they're far more fearful of iran than israel).....and have the threat removed.

But that was not my question, was it?…Let me repeat it for you:

Question for you: If Netanyahu decides to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, will you support or condemn him?

Netanyahu taking a unilateral decision to attack Iran was my question...Will you support such an attack or not?
.
.

[shira]

189. kayecy, your list is incomplete and your comparisons WRT diplomacy are asinine

What happened to France/Algeria? Are we supposed to pretend that this conflict, at least 10x worse than I/P, didn't happen?

Where's the current Afghanistan conflict? Oops?

What's with Israel invading Egypt in '67 when Israel was the one surrounded by at least 5 Arab armies threatening annhilation just 19 years after they invaded in 1948? It's asinine to claim that Israel (within the Auschwitz borders of 1948 when Israel was just 15 miles wide at one point) should have waited for Egypt and 5 other Arab nations to attack first, considering the 1973 war (which you would have blamed Israel for had they attacked Egypt first).

Are we to pretend that other Western nations have enemy neighbors like Israel does? Because, let's face it, if other Western nations had enemies like Israel has, these Western nations wouldn't take any shit and you'd be defending their actions (as you did in our other thread WRT Iraq sanctions that killed at least half a million).

Finally, there's Turkey invading Cyprus without negotiation, and the resulting occupation that is nearly as long as Israel's (1974 as opposed to 1967). Imagine that, another Western nation you know a lot about, considering you hail from Nicosia Cyprus - where Turkey has imported its own settlers, created a separation barrier, and also occupies part of Syria (while also denying the dreaded Kurds their national aspirations).

ps
Maybe we should include Britain's disproportionate, massive bombing campaign against Germany too?

[pelsar]

190. i see you avoided the question about Ghajar ....Iran answered

see above- questions is to be answered:
should the residents have a say in who rules their village, including israel, as some have mentioned that they prefer.....or in your opinion should the residents NOT have the option of remaining israeli citizens in their village as their are today? an go from living free under a democracy to living under a dictatorship or under militia religious law?

....what exactly would it change in regards to Hizballa, if israel leaves the village, just withdraws

----------
i havent decided if i would support Netanyahu if israel went it alone.......i have no problem with the principle of it, just whether or not its practical including the following "fallout." (though i have no doubt, that the arab countries would prefer it, as would those in europe, who are now becoming reachable.....) or when it has to be done.

_____

back to your list:.
do i reference Nassar declaring war..dont have to, thats what closing off a foreign countries port is all about: a firm, clear declaration of war-check the laws.

i prefer looking at ones actions as opposed to words...Nasssar said all kinds of things...and pulled out the UN from the Sinai....

Israel seems unable to resist attacking foreign lands without warning,...ok...tell me, do you not know history? or as i see it, you have a preference not to read and learn what israel does,

lets see if you really stand by your words:...read the below and write them again:

lebanon 82...have you any idea how many attacks on israel were from fatah land(lebanon pre82) and for how long? for how many years? how about Hizballas attacks,....6 years before israel invaded...how about gaza 6,000 + missiles before israel invaded......
67 was without "warning"?

and how many times israeli politicians told the various govts to "stop it" (dont tell me, they didnt say "pretty please....", or they didnt send presents first, or they didnt go through all the "proper channels"......im just guessing but that seems to me that is what your going to write about). If you really want to compare israel to the other western countries, then i would suggest you find one that was under missile attack, constant cross border raids-then compare, but you cant, nor do you want to, because western countries once attacked, forgo your theory.....of "trying every diplomatic channel" In fact, as i see it you just made it up

to me its clear, you just look at your list, and come to a conclusion, the actions prior are not relevant to you. And as far as pre 48 goes, you keep writing about what western countries do as a matter of principle.....time is irrelevant to that principle, and do you know of any western country that has had its cities under attack since WWII? or whole country threatened....thats the reference point.
____

this is ONE (though i know little about it)
When ‘every available means are used before killing people”, western democracies are often successful in avoiding war by diplomacy (eg the 95/96 China-US-Taiwan crisis)

Often means more than one.....can i see the list please?

[kayecy]

193. You should be a politician...They are experts at giving ‘weasel word’ answers......

Questions, questions, questions....If only you were half as assiduous in providing answers to my questions!

.....i see you avoided the question about Ghajar

Not at all....I said it would seem a good idea for Israel to withdraw from the village...I really knew nothing about Ghajar...For some reason you implied I was not concerned with what the villagers wanted, but since you didn’t ask me that question I fail to see why you became so agitated...Let me try again:

.... should the residents have a say in who rules their village, including israel, as some have mentioned that they prefer.....or in your opinion should the residents NOT have the option of remaining israeli citizens in their village as their are today? an go from living free under a democracy to living under a dictatorship or under militia religious law?

From a quick surf on the Net, the facts seem to be as follows:
Prior to 1967 Ghajar was considered as part of Syria.
After 1967 it seemed to drop into no-mans land but was eventually occupied by Israel and its citizens given Israeli citizenship.
In 2,000, the UN in its wisdom, drew a blue line for the Lebanese border thru the middle of the village.
Israel re-occupied the Lebanese half of the village after the 2,006 Lebanese war.

Under International law, the villagers on or near a border have no say in where that border lies...The border is a matter for agreement with the governments concerned.

You ask me “should the residents have the option of remaining Israeli citizens?”..
My answer:
I am a believer in personal freedom and therefore I think they should have that option...However, I am also a realist and if Israel tried to annex the area, such an action is likely to end in more killing which I abhor..Of course, if you are asking me if the Ghajar citizens should retain their Israel citizenship and simply re-locate to Israel then I don’t think even Hizbollah would object.


Now a question for you:..
Q1...Israel has offered the residents of Ghajar and the Golan Heights citizenship but has not done so to West Bank residents....In your opinion, is that because Israel applies double-standards when it suits it or is there some other reason?

....what exactly would it change in regards to Hizballa, if israel leaves the village, just withdraws

It would give Nasrallah one less excuse for rattling his saber.

i haven't decided if i would support Netanyahu if israel went it alone.......i have no problem with the principle of it, just whether or not its practical including the following "fallout."

Thank you for getting round to my simple question on Iran being attacked, but your answer is rather a cop-out, isn’t it?

What you are really saying is that if Netanyahu attacks Iran and as a result Iran stops its nuclear activities, you would then hail Netanyahu as the great saviour...You would pride yourself with having had no problem with the ‘principle’ of the attack, even though as a liberal, you had some doubts before-hand...

However, if Netanyahu attacks Iran and the Middle East goes up in flames with rockets flying everywhere and thousand killed, you will then say “I told you so...Netanyahu should have considered the fallout from his action.”

You should be a politician...They are experts at giving ‘weasel word’ answers.

.....do i reference Nassar declaring war..dont have to, thats what closing off a foreign countries port is all about: a firm, clear declaration of war-check the laws.

I have checked the law and closing off a port is a ‘casus belli’, not a declaration of war...Having a casus belli does not mean Israel was under an existential threat and it does not mean Israel had no choice but to respond militarily...Israel could have spent weeks in diplomacy, could have asked its super-power friend to intervene but it chose not to do so...lt chose to go to war and kill lots of people, simply so that it could demonstrate its military superiority...

... i prefer looking at ones actions as opposed to words...Nasssar said all kinds of things...and pulled out the UN from the Sinai....

You may prefer actions to words, but Israel’s generals/politicians have greater responsibilities...They knew Nasser was too weak to invade Israel but they still chose to go to war.

Q2....Why did Israel’s generals/politicians decide to invade Egypt when the knew Nasser was no real threat?

And as far as pre 48 goes, you keep writing about what western countries do as a matter of principle.....time is irrelevant to that principle

If it will make you happy, I am quite willing to state that Israel has not killed as many people as the US did in 1945 at Hiroshima, Israel has not fire-bombed cities like the Allies did to Dresden and Tokyo, Israel has not starved its prisoners-of-war like the Russians did in WW2, nor has it carried out genocide on the Arabs like the Ottomans did with the Armenians...Of course, if Israel had been in existence in that period who knows what it would have done...I judge everyone by the same standards but only a fool could think concepts of morality and civil-rights have remained unchanged over the years...

Often means more than one.....can i see the list please?

Herewith a few examples for your education:
57 Turkey – Syria – crisis
62 Cuban missile crisis
62 Kuwait –Iraq crisis
63 Malasia - Indonesian crisis
65 Malasia – Singapore independence
67 Chile-Argentina Beagle channel
69 Turkey - Cyprus invasion threat
70 Syria – Jordan crisis (I’m sure you know of Israel’s involvement in this!)
71 Iran – UAE Tunb Islands crisis
79 South Yemen - Yemen Arab Republic (Resolved by Arab League intervention)
90 German-Poland border crisis
95/96 China-Taiwan crisis
96 Greece-Turkey Imia island crisis
98 Turkey – Syria crisis
99 Spain-Gibraltar crisis
02 Australia-Indonesia crisis
08 Columbia- Venezuela-Ecuador incursion

None of the above disputes reached the serious killing stage....


Q3....How many crises has Israel resolved (or at least damped-down) without killing people?...
(Please don't cite Israel's attempt to keep Jordan out of the '67 war.)
.
.

[pelsar]

194. you misunderstood and some corrections...

my opinion about striking iran has nothing to do with a decision after the fact, my opinion is that iran, which has threatened israel directly countless times is very dangerous and should not get the Abomb, Going it alone, i'm not sure is the best route....I would support the decision in fact though i'm not totally behind it (like your wrote about 67, perhaps the israeli generals know more than the population....)

Israel re-occupied the Lebanese half of the village after the 2,006 Lebanese war

it was occupied from 67, when it was taken from Syria and annexed....and i figured you would have no problem in telling the residents that if they want to remain as israeli citizens they should leave their homes...i.e. become refugees....as if making them refugees would change anything with Nassralla

you skipped the question about nassralla again: what do you think he wants?

___________________________

.Israel could have spent weeks in diplomacy,---Q2....Why did Israel’s generals/politicians decide to invade Egypt when the knew Nasser was no real threat?

Perhaps you missed my history lesson, where i explained that israel was at full mobilization, and whos economy was at a standstill, with no oil coming in. Nassar could have kept it up indefinitely israel couldnt.......and of course there is the fact that no israeli general can read the future and know how any war will actually end
___

your right:
Of course, if Israel had been in existence in that period who knows what it would have done...I judge everyone by the same standards but only a fool could think concepts of morality and civil-rights have remained unchanged over the year

so the US gets bombed and they promptly go out and destroy two countries...the UK gets a small island taken over and they promptly go to war. Russia gets a few terrorist attacks and starts carpet bombing Chechnyia.....yep things sure have changed (i wont even mention syria destroying their own city using gas after the artillery....(hama 1982)......so whats changed?

_____

Q1...Israel has offered the residents of Ghajar and the Golan Heights citizenship but has not done so to West Bank residents....In your opinion, is that because Israel applies double-standards when it suits it or is there some other reason?

the residents of the golan are druz, a sect that does not see israel as the enemy to be destroyed, the Palestinians of the westbank and gaza have strong nationalistic views of arab rulers etc, it should be obvious that giving them citizenship would probably destroy the liberal democracy that israel is....one can call it a double standard, or the moral choice of choosing to preserve a liberal democracy and not risk its destruction.

____

your list?...its a list of how to use military strength to force an issue where one side backs down....is that your definition of "diplomacy?"

I'm not familiar with them all so i shall comment on a few:
the cuban missile crises? the US threatened Russia with war!!
Syria – Jordan? Yes, Syria started moving tanks towards jordan when Israeli jets over flew them.....a clear warning to stop...they stop, meanwhile Jordan kept killing the Palestenians...is that your "diplomacy? Israel threatening Syria

now that we've cleared it up by what you mean by diplomacy

None of the above disputes reached the serious killing stage...

your asking if israel has every applied it...well either you dont know the history or prefer not to. Israel has a long history of attempting to difuse "the next war' with small operations to remove the specific threat....thats the "avoiding the "serious killing stage".

i'll give you two obvious examples to show simply how wrong you are:

the Litani operation in 78...the IDF to stop the katushas that were being fired from S. Lebanon, the IDF had a limited operation that went up the litani river and then back to the intl border, and it brought in the UN on the border. It was limited and in the end didnt stop the attacks, nevertheless the attempt was there as was bringing in the UN.

and of course theres the 6,000 missiles that have been fired from gaza with israel trying various limited military (avoiding the "serious killing stage") and diplomacy. Obviously nothing worked as the missiles kept on coming until the invasion, where they have know been virtually stopped by hamas.

those are just two examples.......

[kayecy]

195. I’m beginning to wonder if you have lost all sense of reality.......

...you skipped the question about nassralla again: what do you think he wants?

Not at all....The above question is a new one.
Answer:....I have no idea what Nassralla wants.


Question for you: What do you think Netanyahu wants?...What are his ‘red lines’ east of the Green Line?
Does he intend to keep the Golan?...
.....Keep East Jerusalem?
.....Keep the settlements?...
.....Keep the Palestinians permanently stateless? ......Do you agree with him?

...Perhaps you missed my history lesson, where i explained that israel was at full mobilization, and whos economy was at a standstill, with no oil coming in. Nassar could have kept it up indefinitely israel couldn’t......with no oil coming in. Nassar could have kept it up indefinitely israel couldnt

Let’s stop this fiction about an Israeli oil-shortage in 1967...Israel did not suffer an oil shortage in the 11 days after the closure of the Straights of Tiran, and anyway, Israel had other ports open through which it could bring in oil.

That leaves us with the real reason Israel went to war....It could not maintain full mobilisation...In other words, Israel is inherently unstable...It is too powerful when mobilised, it is too small to be secure when not mobilised and it is too keen to flout International Law by hanging on to its war gains.

In ’67, Nasser provided Israel with an opportunity to enhance its regional super-power status by destroying Egyptian forces in a surprise attack....Since then Israel has never been under any existential threat from its neighbours so it has proceeded to encourage settlements and annex and occupy land beyond the Green Line...

40 years on and four wars later it is still doing that but now its regional super-power status is again under threat...Iran wants nuclear parity with Israel..

We are back to ’67 again, but this time with much higher stakes... I hope I am wrong, but Netanyahu shows every sign of having decided to attack Iran, even at the risk of starting a nuclear war...

....your list?...its a list of how to use military strength to force an issue where one side backs down....is that your definition of "diplomacy?"

Does it matter whether military strength or diplomacy is used to prevent a war so long as it does not kill people?...If Israel had used its military superiority in ’67 to prevent the war, there would now be nothing to discuss....Instead it chose to invade Egypt..

....Israel has a long history of attempting to defuse "the next war' with small operations to remove the specific threat….. i'll give you two obvious examples:
a) ….the Litani operation in 78...the IDF to stop the katushas that were being fired from S. Lebanon, the IDF had a limited operation that went up the litani river

Some facts on your example:
a) According to Pierre Tristam, between1,000 and 2,000 Lebanese were killed and some 250,000 made refugees as a result of Israel’s ’78 Litani invasion.
b) President Jimmy Carter said: "I consider this major invasion to be an overreaction…" and "a serious threat to the peace in the region."
c) Ze’ev Schiff summarizes an Israeli general’s take on the 1978 invasion: “We struck the civilian population consciously, because they deserved it … the Army has always struck civilians, purposely and consciously—even when Israeli settlements had not been struck.”

I’m beginning to wonder if you have lost all sense of reality…You actually think that the ‘78 invasion of Lebanon was an example of how Israel made a diplomatic move to avoid a war?

[pelsar]

196. you have a comparison problem.....

you keep trying to show how "sub western israel is, by claiming that other western states solve their problems with "diplomacy" and then you list crises over the years where wars did not stop and claim that somehow they are related.....

its iike comparing apples and orangse. What your list does show however, that the threat of overwhelming force does prevent wars: If your going to try to show how "subwestern israel is, at least find similar circumstances...the trouble is when you do, your whole theory falls apart, and you tend to avoid them:

your list with the relevant comments (not complete....)

57 Turkey – Syria – crisis--------------nobody was shooting at the other
62 Cuban missile crisis:--------------overwhelming force US threatens the USSR with WWIII
62 Kuwait –Iraq crisis --------------nobody was shooting at the other
63 Malasia - Indonesian crisis--------------overwhelming force The British Navy deployed around Malasia to defend it:
65 Malasia – Singapore independence ???????
67 Chile-Argentina Beagle channel--------------nobody was shooting at the other
69 Turkey - Cyprus invasion threat--------------nobody was shooting at the other
70 Syria – Jordan crisis--------------overwhelming force Israel threatens Syria with war, Syria backsdown from invading jordan
71 Iran – UAE Tunb Islands crisis
79 South Yemen - Yemen Arab Republic (Resolved by Arab League intervention)
90 German-Poland border crisis
95/96 China-Taiwan crisis
96 Greece-Turkey Imia island crisis
98 Turkey – Syria crisis
99 Spain-Gibraltar crisis
02 Australia-Indonesia crisis--------------a few terrorist attacks on Indonesia soil.....(against various western interests)
08 Columbia- Venezuela-Ecuador incursion

____

now compare these- i believe i've made this list several times, you prefer to ignore it....
Argentina attacks falkands: UK response: military
Al Quida, a non state actor attacks the US: The US destroys (and attempts to rebuild) two countries
Multiple Terrorist attacks on russia by chechnian for indepandance: Russia invades

just a few relevant example when the crises involves violent actions...these represent the modern west, the one you prefer not to compare to israel.
_________

Answer:....I have no idea what Nassralla wants
HUH??????? if you have no idea what he wants then why do keep on insisting that israel make refugees out of the villagers (of move them to live ina dictatorship) to give Nasralla "a carrot" when in fact you have no idea why he attacked israel and is now rearming?

how can you give an opinion if you have no idea what his motivations are?
_________

and i certainly enjoyed this comment of yours:
That leaves us with the real reason Israel went to war....It could not maintain full mobilisation...In other words, Israel is inherently unstable...It is too powerful when mobilised, it is too small to be secure when not mobilised and it is too keen to flout International Law by hanging on to its war gains.

in fact i suspect that the real reason was a combo of the full mobilization an the fact that no israeli general/politician, with a population of concentration camp survivors could possibly let nassars threats go by....but thats just my opinion.....Nassar whether or not he meant to go to war, sure shouldn't have been "jokin with israel".....it seems israel doesnt have a sense of humor....but i did enjoy your comment about israel being inherently unstable....i guess thats another way of saying that israel really isnt really stable enough to be a real country..did i get that right? (this is a new one for me.....because israel cant maintain full mobiliztion of its reserves its really not a stable country.....LOL and spilled my coffee again-i didnt know that was a criteria for a country.....

[kayecy]

200. I have no comparison problem.....You seem to have a reading problem......

What your list does show however, that the threat of overwhelming force does prevent wars:……..
The following is your list with the relevant comments (not complete....)
57 Turkey – Syria – crisis--------------nobody was shooting at the other
62 Cuban missile crisis:--------------overwhelming force US threatens the USSR with WWIII
62 Kuwait –Iraq crisis --------------nobody was shooting at the other
etc...etc

Exactly my point...The threat of overwhelming force can prevent wars if given a chance....It is a pity Israel does not seem to believe in giving either diplomacy or threats time to work....(eg 12 days in ’56 and I believe no threats were issued to Egypt.)

As your notes on my list show, except for Israel, the parties to a dispute often manage to resolve matters without shooting...

.... now compare these ....
Argentina attacks falkands: UK response: military
The US ……..Russia……just a few relevant example when the crises involves violent actions...these represent the modern west, the one you prefer not to compare to israel.

Not true...I am quite happy to compare the modern West with Israel...Take your first example:
1. An Argentinian dictatorship invades the Falklands....The UK (after two months of diplomacy) is left with no choice but to recover the island by military force to allow the islanders a free choice as to their future.

Which of Israel’s violent conflicts do you wish to compare with the UK’s Falklands actions?...

HUH??????? if you have no idea what he wants then why do keep on insisting that israel make refugees out of the villagers (of move them to live ina dictatorship

I have insisted on no such thing!....Do check what I write before you make such inaccurate statements....

.... how can you give an opinion if you have no idea what his motivations are?

That is a piece of double-talk if there ever was one...You asked my opinion on whether the residents of Ghajar...should have the option of remaining Israeli citizens?....To try to answer your question I went to some trouble to dig out the facts on Ghajar....After reading these facts I answered you as follows:
"....I think they should have that option..."

What an earth has Nasrallah’s motivations to do with my opinion on whether the people of Ghajar should, or should not have an option to remain Israeli citizens?

...... in fact i suspect that the real reason was a combo of the full mobilization an the fact that no israeli general/politician, with a population of concentration camp survivors could possibly let nassars threats go by……. LOL and spilled my coffee again-i didnt know that was a criteria for a country.....

I am sorry you spilled your coffee over my claim that Israel was inherently an unstable state...If you continued reading you would have found out that my main concern was that this unstable state was a now a nuclear power...was again on the brink of war and was again determined to show a neighbouring state, (one that had done no more than bluster), that Israel was going to remain the region’s only super-power.

Since by now there must be very few “concentration camp survivors” in Israel, is it not reasonable for the rest of the world to demand that Israel with its nuclear weapons becomes a little less volatile and refrains from attacking Iran?...

The Middle-East is on the brink of a possible nuclear war and rather than discussing that existential question, you spill your coffee over the “criteria for a country”!

[pelsar]

201. lets keep this simple ...as simple as it gets...

you keep writing how israel is so quick to go to war:

gaza.....lets take that as an example, Israel leaves gaza....and gets 6,000 + missiles on various cities over several years

after attempting not just negotiations directly and indirectly....., opening an closing border control points based on when the missiles were fired...after attempts at limited strikes on the missiles crews, on their handlers...

and the missiles kept on coming (as did the attacks on the border points when they were open)

israel invades......and the missiles stops.
____

seems to me what israel did follows your version of the "western standard)....as your wrote the UK invaded after only two months, israel took several years

so i'm sure israel did it wrong......in your view. Yet they didnt attack so quickly like the UK or the US, didnt wipe out the entire enemy garrison, didnt destroy the govt structure, didnt "sink an old battleship" ........so how is israel 'bad" in the case of gaza..perhaps 6,000 missiles weren't enough, perhaps 12,000 are required before invading?

_________

one comment: overwhelming force to prevent a war, requires that all parties agree that one party has overwhelming force..that was not the case in 67, the combined arab forces had a larger army than israel....and nothing is certain in war.....(usually both sides figure they're going to win....). Your view that in 67 israel could have told Nassar to open the straits, return the UN and tell syria to stop shooting at them has little to do with the reality of the time period....or the politics of the area. Its just an attempt to show how evil and "unstable" israel is when the surrounding arab states threaten to wipe it out....maybe the arab states shouldnt be threatening israel in the first place?.....

[pelsar]

202. and Ghajar...we'll keep this simple..

i realize that you dont like facing the consequences for your beliefs so we'll keep this as simple as i understand it:

1) you dont know what Nassralla wants (as you admitted previously)
2) you also believe if Nassralla gets Ghajar that will eliminate one of the things he wants--see no 1
3) you believe israel should withdraw from Ghajar....that means for the residents of Ghaja 3 options:

pay attention as this is the consequence for your belief:

Ghajar goes to lebanon in which case the residents live under the thumb of a religious militia (the lebanese govt isnt present in s. lebanon
Ghajar goes to Syria, in which case the residents live under a dictatorship

The residents leave their homes to remain as israeli citizens and become refugees...

is there another option I am missing?

_______________________

i think you solution as far as the residents of Ghajar goes is pretty pathetic-making them choose between retaining their civil rights and leaving their homes or living in a dictatorship...... and for what?....so Nassralla a militia leader can control a village that is not his to control?

[pelsar]

203. and the classic case of ethnocentrisim-cultural colonialism.....

i describe cutural colonialism as the "new coloniaism"...basically it states that all countries must live up to "our modern west" way of thinking (do as i say, dont do as i do.....) and if they don't they are either "subwestern and not living up to the ideal, or they not western and are given that "lower, second standard." which is excused for reasons that are beyond me.

now the first "subwestern" group, which i believe only includes israel, a country in the middle east, it appears is expected, by some, to live with the same values as othe countries not in a continual state of being attacked, UK (which should be reminded waited a whole two months before attacking argentena forces, or the US, whom destroyed two countries based on a single attack on a single day.....)

you wrote about the 6 day war:
Israel could have spent weeks in diplomacy, could have asked its super-power friend to intervene but it chose not to do so

amazing....this is based on the assumption that israels citizens and history are similar to that of say, france, or the UK, or the US...when in fact the history of the jews, which is the reason behind zionism and israel, was precisely because "depending upon other countries" for their good will, only got them jew laws, kicked out, killed and finally slaughtered en mass....

and here you are proposing the exact same thing, that israel should sit quietly back while others decide their fate (the same friends that refused to bomb the rails to the camps, that blocked immigration, that had jew quotas....).........i'm sure the population of israel, the people, those who barely survived the last jew extermination effort, would really appreciate your empathy....and idealism of the utopian world, how things have changed since WWII (wasnt the US napalming vietnam in those days? and didnt Egypt use mustard gas in yemen.....)

oh one more thing...who was this "super-power friend"...(the US wasnt so close back then...)

[shira]

204. cue the crickets in response to all the major points of this latest post

[kayecy]

205. Herewith my comparison...Would you now give me your comparison of these two conflicts?...

....i think you solution as far as the residents of Ghajar goes is pretty pathetic-making them choose between retaining their civil rights and leaving their homes or living in a dictatorship......

I have not made anyone chose anything...Look at what we have written:

Q-Pelsar....should the residents have a say in who rules their village?..(M190)
A-Kayecy....I am a believer in personal freedom and therefore I think they should have that option..(M193)
Q-Pelsar......you skipped the question about nassralla again:...what do you think he wants (M194)
A-Kaye:.....(Puzzled!)...I have no idea what Nassrallah wants. (M195)
Q-Pelsar.....how can you give an opinion if you have no idea what his motivations are?(M196)
A-Kayecy.....(Even more puzzled) What an earth has Nassrallah’s motivations to do with my opinion on whether the people of Ghajar should, or should not have an option to remain Israeli citizens? (M200)
Q-Pelsar.... i think your solution as far as the residents of Ghajar goes is pretty pathetic (M202)

A-Kayecy.....(Exasperated!)...Once and for all will you get it into your head that:
1...I think the villagers should have an option as to who rules them.
2...I do not have a solution to the Israel’s Ghajar problem.
3...I do not insist on anything!...

You are entitled to your opinion of me but if you think the above exchange in any way supports your accusation of me being “pretty pathetic”, you must be crazy.

...you keep writing how israel is so quick to go to war:
gaza.....lets take that as an example, Israel leaves gaza....and gets 6,000 + missiles on various cities over several years

I have not said Israel was quick to go to war in the Gaza conflict, nor that it did not make clear its intentions to attack Gaza if the rockets did not stop.

Israel was, however, completely immoral in repeatedly breaching the laws of war, including carrying out direct attacks on civilians and civilian buildings and attacks targeting Palestinian militants that caused a disproportionate toll among civilians... It deliberately targeted policemen and used phosphor weapons over civilian areas...

...now compare these- i believe i've made this list several times, you prefer to ignore it....
Argentina attacks falkands: UK response: military

I have not ignored it...I am more than happy to compare Israel’s ’67 conflict with the UK’s ‘82 conflict.

a) Israel sovereignty was not invaded & no Israeli was forced to live under a dictatorship.
b) UK sovereignty was invaded and UK citizens were forced (temporarily) to live under a dictator.

a) Israel waited 11 days before it reacted to Nasser’s closure of the Straights of Tiran...It did not ask the UN or the USA to put pressure on Nasser.
b) The UK waited two months before re-taking the Falklands...During that two months the UN and the USA did everything possible to persuade the Argentines to give up their conquest.

a) When the Sinai fighting stopped, Israel had occupied 60,000 sq km of Egyptian territory.
b) When the Falklands fighting stopped, the UK occupied zero sq km of Argentinian territory.

a) Since the ’56 war, Israel has again been at war with Egypt.
b) Since the Falklands war, there has been peace in the South Atlantic and the Argentinian dictator had been removed.


You asked me to give you a comparison...Would you now give me your comparison of these two conflicts?...
So far you have merely indicated that you are unhappy with the sinking of the Belgrano...Did Israel not attack any ships in ’67?
.
.

[pelsar]

206. you dont get to "have your cake and "eat it too"

there are real consequences for actions....you dont seem to like that concept:

Kayecy (193): I said it would seem a good idea for Israel to withdraw from the village:

Kayecy (205) I think the villagers should have an option as to who rules them.

seems to be a bit of a conflict here in your view: (dont be exasperated, just take your view and take it to the conclusion....what it means to the people living there)

so if israel withdraws as you suggest....., what would be the REAL consequence for the israeli citizens who have been living there, .....rather than me list what i thing the consequences would be for such an action..perhaps you should write it and explain why its just for the villagers.....

and i'm still confused why you think a militia (hizballa) that has already occupied a countries land, should have its demands met by the UN for more land and to control more people--because they threaten to use force?
____________________


Gaza:
Israel was, however, completely immoral in repeatedly breaching the laws of war, including carrying out direct attacks on civilians and civilian buildings and attacks targeting Palestinian militants that caused a disproportionate toll among civilians...

do you actually know what the ROE were?....the coordination between the Gaza population phoning up the IDF to remove the wounded or civilians?.....the amount of ordinance dropped vers the actual number of killed and wounded in one of the most densely crowded cities on earth?...or are such details and information deemed irrelevant? What are you basing you opinion on? Are you using your "western standard"?

do you know what the uniform of hamas is? Are civilians buildings "civilian" if they have bombs in them or people use them to shoot and recon?.....i'm just curious as to how your definition works.....

also please keep the hyperbole out as much as possible: phosphor weapons over civilian areas are legal for use as smoke cover,which is what is they were used for, hence you mentioning of it, is solely for emotional response.....please avoid such tactics.


and just for fun, given the limitation of military hardware, and human judgement, and of course the history of gaza and lebanon II, i assume you have a better solution that Israel should have used........which is?
___

and the Falklands Occupation?...your entirely off base, The UK was simply occupying Argentina land, placing settlers there. As per your solution to Ghajar, I dont know why you don't want to be consistent: The UK settlers should be given the option of returning to the UK or living under Argentinean rule.

The whole war could have been avoided if the UK simply gave up its imperialistic conquest....isnt that part of the new "western moral code?"

[pelsar]

207. the comparison is easy.... between the falklands and the 6 day war..

The wars were completely different

The falklands war was simply not necessary. The UK was not threatened, whatever Argentineans intentions were, real or perceived, the UK as a country, its economics, its sovereignty were not threatened. What was, was one of the remnants of its imperialistic days that the UK refused to "fix." The sinking of the Belgrad was nothing less than murder (they could have shot two torpedos on either side of the ship, phoned them (via england) and i have little doubt they would have turned around.....is .this is the western standard your talking about?

Israel on the other hand, had one of its ports shut down, had fought an arial battles previously with Syria, who had been shelling and sniping at israelis for a while, egypt was making all kinds of war noises, which put israel on full alert, mobilizing is population, shutting down the economy (even private trucks and cars were taken by the army)....

Nassars speeches were full of the: " we must be ready for triumph and not for a recurrence of the 1948 comedies. We shall triumph, God willing."

kind of rhetoric (there is so much of this over the years, that it one has to close one ears and pretend he "really didnt mean it-(its true he was known as having a funny sense of humor.) And of course with israel at full mobilization, and assuming that Nassar was really just misunderstood, he always could have backed down, returned the UN, ended the blockade on the port....but i guess he had other ideas

probably related to:
"Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight," he said on May 27.9 The following day, he added: "We will not accept any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war with Israel is in effect since 1948."



did i miss that kind of rhetoric coming from the Argentinean govt?...your actually trying to compare the two?.....

[kayecy]

208. You have just used the most brazen double-standard I have ever seen!....

....seems to be a bit of a conflict here in your view: (dont be exasperated, just take your view and take it to the conclusion....what it means to the people living there)

No conflict at all....I repeat, my views are as follows:
“I think the villagers should have an option as to who rules them.”
“I have no solution for Israel’s Ghajar problem.”
If I confused you by saying “It would seem a good idea..”, then I apologise....

What is much more interesting is whether you agree that Israel should eventually withdraw from some of the West bank settlements?...Think carefully before you answer, I would be so disappointed if you practiced double-standards!....

Remember what you wrote: "...i figured you would have no problem in telling the residents that if they want to remain Israeli citizens they should leave their homes...i.e. become refugees..."
.
.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

...and i'm still confused why you think a militia (hizballa) that has already occupied a countries land, should have its demands met by the UN for more land and to control more people--because they threaten to use force?

Answer:...I think no such thing....However, I do like your phrase “...hizbollah that has already occupied a country’s land.”...Isn't that a bit rich coming from a citizen of a state that has made rather a fetish of occupying other countries' lands?


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Israel was, however, completely immoral in repeatedly breaching the laws of war, including carrying out direct attacks on civilians and civilian buildings and attacks targeting Palestinian militants that caused a disproportionate toll among civilians...
? What are you basing you opinion on? Are you using your "western standard"?

Read the Haaretz article on the recent Amnesty International report: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1088912.html
"Israeli forces repeatedly breached the laws of war, including by carrying out direct attacks on civilians and civilian buildings.....”

...please keep the hyperbole out as much as possible: phosphor weapons over civilian areas are legal for use as smoke cover, which is what is they you mentioning of it, is solely for emotional response.....please avoid such tactics.

Hyperbole!...Tell that to the kids who were burnt by the fragments and I suppose you didn’t see how IDF ‘smoke cover’ set light to the UN Stores?...Read the 6th May Times article on the UN investigation:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6229545.ece
”A United Nations investigation yesterday accused Israel of "reckless disregard" for human life in using white phosphorus munitions that killed and injured Palestinians sheltering in a UN school...”

I would have thought by now you would have learnt not to accept IDF reports without first checking rather more independent investigations.
.
.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

...and the Falklands Occupation?...your entirely off base, The UK was simply occupying Argentina land, placing settlers there.

Errr....I think you might need to do some reading......Argentinian land?....Since when?...When were there Argentinians living there? ... The Falklands have been sovereign UK territory for the last 170 years...
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands

The UK settlers should be given the option of returning to the UK or living under Argentinean rule.

The UK ‘settlers’ as you call them were given exactly that option in 1967..The UK even agreed to hand over sovereignty to the Argentinians provided the islanders themselves regarded such an agreement as satisfactory to their interests...The islanders declared they wanted to continue their way of life and be ruled by Britain...

Don’t the wishes of the islanders mean anything to you?...To quote your own words “They would lose their Israeli (read ‘British’) citizenship and rights”...

Either you are completely ignorant of what lead up to the Falklands or you have just used the most brazen double-standard I have ever seen!
.
.

[shira]

128. you want to compare UK to Israel now?

Fine.

Count the number of civilian casualties the UK is responsible for since the Kosovo/Serbia war from 15 years ago. Add in Iraq and now Afghanistan and compare the atrocious numbers of civilians killed that the UK is responsible for in foreign lands thousands of miles away to Israel's in both Lebanon and Gaza combined where the civilian to combatant kill ratio was around 1:1 (in Gaza more militants were killed than civilians)...see here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x270897#274151

You believe the UK has done better than that recently in just Iraq and Afghanistan where hundreds of thousands have been killed? I think it takes quite a bit of nerve for any westerner from the USA, UK, France (check out their role in Rwanda alone) to point to Israel's military record while under direct threat to its own civilians. Forget how Israel compares to the 3rd world countries that you believe are retarded; the fact is Israel fights more ethically than any other western military as well.

on edit:
It takes a lot of nerve for any Europeans to want to rehash Israeli history from the last 100 years, considering Europe's role in defining the mideast, to its silence while 6 million Jews were murdered, and to its present where they kill hundreds of thousands many miles away from their own homeland. What right does any European have to lecture or preach to Israel considering the last 100 years of history? If anything, it should be the other way around. IDF troops aren't going thousands of miles away to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and they're certainly not assholes who'd do that and then turn to a lesser country and lecture them on ethics.

[pelsar]

85. one note...history is important to understand the conflict...and why your worng

which is why you are wrong here:

They simply want to be left to run their lives in the place their ancestors ran theirs...The only people preventing them from doing so are the Zionists

example; the village of Pharades, just north of zichron yaacov (about 2 miles). The leaders of the village told the local palmach commander in zichron that they want no part of the conflict (as you mentioned) but to continue working in their fields and with the jews in their wine factory:

Result? the continue to live in their growing village (zichron just transferred some land to them for their growth because of their geography) as citizens of israel. The zionists apparently DID NOT prevent them from living their lives.
__________
Now the more interesting question is, now that your thesis has been show not to be correct, do you adjust your opinion or look for a way to explain why the citizens of Pharades (and others btw) were wrong for not fighting the jews.....and not change any part of your opinion?

[kayecy]

88. Now I can agree with you there....

one note...history is important to understand the conflict...

Now I can agree with you there....History is very important when trying to understand this conflict.

example; the village of Pharades, just north of zichron yaacov (about 2 miles). The leaders of the village told the local palmach commander in zichron that they want no part of the conflict (as you mentioned) but to continue working in their fields and with the jews in their wine factory: Result? the continue to live in their growing village

An exception which proves the rule!...Being a coward myself, I would have done the same....Was Palmach armed?...Were the villages armed?....Don't make me laugh.


By 1935, one source estimates that 30% of the Palestinian peasantry had been made landless...No doubt they too would have agreed to be peacable if the Zionists had allowed them to continue working their land as had their fathers and fore-fathers before them.

[pelsar]

89. why the exception?

there were other villages where the same occurred.....no attacks by the arabs, no attacks by the jews.....or in Haifa where after a short battle the arabs decided it wasnt worth the fight, and stopped fighting...and got to continue to live their lives as they were

so it wasnt such an exception........where the arabs didnt attack they got to live peaceble with the zionists...

In fact it was the nationalistic arabs that had no intention of living with the jews and decided to start the war....which affected everyone in the region......starting with the mufti

the proof is the example of pharades...arabs didnt attack, made it clear that they were not going to let the irregulars use their village as a base and the zionists didnt attack-and all got to live in peace.

thats the real history of the area.....you may not like it, but it was repeated all over the country...(though there were also exceptions)


as far as your source goes....was the land sold to the jews?...was it legally bought? if so what did the jews do that was wrong?

[kayecy]

94. There wouldn't be any wars if everyone took that attitude.....

...there were other villages where the same occurred.....no attacks by the arabs, no attacks by the jews.....or in Haifa where after a short battle the arabs decided it wasnt worth the fight, and stopped fighting...and got to continue to live their lives as they were

I am sure there were lots of villages in that situation...All now under the rule of Zionists...There wouldn't be any wars if everyone took that attitude...We would all be living under Nazi or Japanese rule now...What is the point you are trying to make?

...as far as your source goes....was the land sold to the jews?...was it legally bought? if so what did the jews do that was wrong?

1. If Zionist immigrants made 35% of the local peasants landless, a lawyer might be able to justify it but anyone with a sense of morality would condemn it...Even if you have no morals it was clearly going to lead to civil unrest at a minimum.

2. If you buy land from an absentee landlord who previously obtained it by fraud, your purchase is invalid...Does it not strike you as odd that all those absentee landlords might have obtained their land-ownership by claiming unregistered but cultivated land at a time when the illiterate local peasants knew nothing of registration?.... They thought the land was theirs because their fathers and their grandfathers had farmed it with no-one suggesting it was not theirs.......I know what you are going to say...."the Palestinians don't get any special rights....they should have got themselves some clever lawyers"
.

[pelsar]

102. so zionists are evil and democracy is bad too.....

and the arabs living in israel, in a democracy, whom even in one of the most anti govt villages (ulm el facham) have polled over 90% that they prefer to live in israel as opposed to a PA controlled govt.

if i understand you correctly...you believe civil rights, democracy is not as important as having a leader of your own genetic make up....

did i get that right? (i am assuming that the Palestinian govt would look similar to that of the PA today or Gazas govt)


this is a question to be answered

[kayecy]

104. I have tried to respond to all your questions and I will try to do the same with this one....

if i understand you correctly...you believe civil rights, democracy is not as important as having a leader of your own genetic make up....did i get that right? ....this is a question to be answered

I have tried to answer ALL your questions (and correct your assumptions) and I will try to do the same with this one.

For me, civil rights and a liberal democracy are very important...Whether my prime-minister is Jewish, Anglo-Saxon or Chinese is immaterial...Having said that, I also believe every people should have the right to chose their own form of government...If you can show me that the pre-1939 residents of Palestinian would have chosen to be ruled by Zionists then I have no dispute with Zionism.

Perhaps in your turn you would be kind enough to answer some of the question I have asked:

1. What I can't understand is why you are so callous about Palestinian suffering and yet so passive with regard to past US actions, carefully decided by Congress in the clear knowledge of what was likely to happen?...The US alone could have taken in every Jew at risk prior to 1939.


2. I am sure there were lots of villages in that situation...All now under the rule of Zionists...There wouldn't be any wars if everyone took that attitude...We would all be living under Nazi or Japanese rule now...What is the point you are trying to make?


3. If you buy land from an absentee landlord who previously obtained it by fraud, your purchase is invalid...Does it not strike you as odd that all those absentee landlords might have obtained their land-ownership by claiming unregistered but cultivated land at a time when the illiterate local peasants knew nothing of registration?.... They thought the land was theirs because their fathers and their grandfathers had farmed it with no-one suggesting it was not theirs.
.
.

[pelsar]

105. some answers.....

its reasonable to assume given the history of the area and the intentions of jordan and egypt and syria that the Palestinians, when the british left would have been over run by those countries and the spoils divided amongst them: Neither jordan nor egypt did anything to help the Palestinians toward independence when they were occupying Palestine.

Given that the Palestenians were not really going to get a say in the leadership of that land mass, i would say those who brought democracy were clearly the better choice (again, the polls confirm that).

i am not callous towards the Palestinian suffering, i am callous toward the leadership..pissed as hell at the arab states and the far left for egging them on to keep on fighting (and losing-look at the maps over the years....). What is the far left doing with Hamas? a theocratic anti gay, anti everything movement?. As far as govts go...they all do what is in their own best interest based on different pressures. ..govts simple arent to be trusted, especially when it comes to helping foreigners....and didnt you learn the lesson that in the end its up to you if you want to change your life or change something?...depending upon others is a losing proposition, so no, i have little expectations toward govts.

The zionists brought democracy to the arabs of Palestine, it was obviously not their main goal, but it was their philosophy, that and socialism and the locals got to enjoy the benefits of it (again, you ignore the polls...they like it)...the nazis and japanese brought dictatorships, death camps, etc...not a whole lot to compare the two.

As far a the absentee landlord obtaining the land by fraud.....was this known by the buyers? or was this the standard for the time period-going to the ruling govt finding out who owned the land and then buying it? If so why do you have different expectations for the zionists?...are they supposed to be "super human"?

_____

now your turn:

since the israeli Palestinian arabs poll for staying in israel and not being moved over to the PA, i would conclude that they prefer israeli democracy to the alternatives....why do you discount their opinion (i mean they do actually live there....)

and since the jews were in fact stuck in europe pre and post WWII and its clear from you point of view they shouldn't have gone to Palestine (remember they locals didnt want them....) so in your opinion would the moral thing for the jews to do would have been to stay in europe and add to the 6 million...and for those that survived and spent years in the DP camps...should they have continued to spend additional years in the camps (remember the quotas were filled, no one wanted them)

In your opinion these would have been the more "moral" decision for the jews.......

[kayecy]

107. I don't discount the opinion of Israeli Palestinians.....The problem is ......

...since the israeli Palestinian arabs poll for staying in israel and not being moved over to the PA, i would conclude that they prefer israeli democracy to the alternatives....why do you discount their opinion (i mean they do actually live there....)

I don't discount their opinion...The problem is that you are only polling those Palestinians inside the Green Line...If you poll all Palestinians west of the Jordan, the result will be rather different.

I believe the Zionists were not interested in having democracy with universal suffrage until they had achieved a Jewish majority...When that proved to be impossible, they used their influence with the US to carve out as big a chunk of Palestine as possible consistent with achieving a Jewish majority.

The Zionists never had any intention of living in a democracy in which the Arabs might have been able to out-vote them... I can understand why, and had I been a Zionist suffering persecution, I might have done the same...However, I hope that had I done so, I would now accept that I had a responsibility to make whatever amends I could...Precious few Israelis seem to have such moral scruples.
.
.

...I am not callous to wards the Palestinian suffering, i am callous toward the leadership..pissed as hell at the arab states and the far left for egging them on to keep on fighting

Do you really think you are not indifferent to Palestinian suffering?.......Let me quote you: "..the Palestinians dont get any special rights thats put them above the worlds imperfections.........its up to them to find a solution, just as the jews did."...That sounds very like you are blaming Palestinians in general for not capitulating to the Zionist Goliath.

If you believe your people are in the right and do not wish to be ruled by incoming aliens, why is it wrong to be prepared to fight and go on fighting for what you believe to be right?

If Britain had taken the same attitude with Hitler after the fall of France, the world would be a very different place today...I'm sure Hitler too was "pissed as hell" at the US "egging Britain on to keep on fighting".
.

[pelsar]

109. sometime i have no idea what your writing about...

When that proved to be impossible, they used their influence with the US to carve out as big a chunk of Palestine as possible consistent with achieving a Jewish majority.

the US had nothing to do with the borders...they are all the result of wars.....

_______

of course the Palestenians outside the greenline dont like israel...they're occupied and do not live as citizens and do not have any rights..... The point is YOU said all they wanted to do was farm and live where they're ancestor lived. Well the ones who didnt leave are doing exactly that....(i think your theory doesnt apply to all the Palestinians)

And my attitude is simple one of principle, it applies to everyone.....the Palestenians are responsible for finding their own solution, just as any group of people are. Infact i would argue that all of the "special rights" they've been given has only made things worse. In 48, after they lost, there was still a large land mass for them (granted i doubt egypt or jordan would have been willing to give it up, still, they could have tried). Of course the arab states dont allow them citizenship, the UN gives them special refugee status special "pass it down to the next generation" insuring that each generation will not have the ability to start fresh in a new place (standard procedure for refugees the world over).-this insures continued suffering of course.

Sure they can keep on fighting , so can the american indians, (why did they stop anyway-they are clearly in the right). Same can be said for the French Canadians, needing to break away, hopefully the scots one day wlll realize their dream of an independent state..... In case you didn't notice, their fighting for the last 60+ years has only made their lives more and more miserable, while the ones who decided not to enjoy better economics, security and freedom....and they still live on their land.

btw you skipped over the most interesting part:
what would have been your suggestion to the jews of europe pre and post WWII-given the jew quotas that were in place all over the world. And what exactly did they do wrong in going to the authorities who ruled the land in order to purchase it.....wasnt that (including today) the standard process to buy land?

[kayecy]

112. You are in a nit-picking mood, aren't you?........

the US had nothing to do with the borders...they are all the result of wars.....

The borders were expanded by Israel in its wars but partition proposals were around long before 1948....Remember the 1937 Peel Plan, the 1947 UN Plan?

Now, instead of nit-picking over whether the US was involved in partition, why not give me your thoughts on the crunch matter:
"The Zionists never had any intention of living in a democracy in which the Arabs might have been able to out-vote them... I can understand why, and had I been a Russian Jew suffering persecution, I might have done the same...However, I hope that had I done so, I would now accept that I had a responsibility to make whatever amends I could...Precious few Israelis seem to have such moral scruples.

....of course the Palestenians outside the greenline dont like israel...they're occupied and do not live as citizens and do not have any rights.....

You are in a nit-picking mood... OK, let me rephrase that - what would a pre-war poll of Palestinians have shown?...Are you in any doubt?

And my attitude is simple one of principle, it applies to everyone.....the Palestenians are responsible for finding their own solution, just as any group of people are.

Some moral principle!...I would call it "might is right" or in the case of the 1920s Zionists "Influence is everything and to the devil with the unprotected."

In case you didn't notice, their fighting for the last 60+ years has only made their lives more and more miserable, while the ones who decided not to enjoy better economics, security and freedom...

You seem to have difficulty accepting that that some people would suffer anything to avoid being ruled by an aliens....Britons would have been in the same boat if Hitler had lasted for 50 years...They would be starving and much worse of than the Vichy French...Any hope that the aggressor will one day be vanquished is enough to make them keep on fighting.

btw you skipped over the most interesting part:
what would have been your suggestion to the jews of europe pre and post WWII-given the jew quotas that were in place all over the world. And what exactly did they do wrong in going to the authorities who ruled the land in order to purchase it...

Not skipped - See the answers I gave in my Message 107 and Message 104(part 3). If that doesn't satisfy you, I am happy to expand on them.

[pelsar]

114. we dont live in an ideal world...."tough love"...

I've come across your thesis before: "People should be allowed to be governed by the type that they choose"...and that has got to be one of the poorest excuses to avoid making a stand that civil rights no matter what color, size or religion stands as a universal right and should be demanded by all govts.

as far as what the Palestinians would have voted in pre 48...probably to be ruled by their own....the Iranians had a revolution "by the people"....i would suggest that those homosexuals that have been hung, the left liberals that aided in the revolution and were subsequently hung, etc probably regret their decision:

so yes like the Palestenians who in gaza are now ruled by Hamas and live in an increasing extreme dictatorship (they wont be "voting again) i'm sure regret their decision, more so the kids who no longer have a choice of their govt and didnt choose....is that the definition of a progressive: let people be ruled by fanatics and dictatorship and pretend they prefer living without freedoms for generations to come?
________

and your right i do have a single standard, and in that respect nothing is equal, some groups succeed and some don't, that is true in all societies all over the world be the communities or countries. I believe the best solution is education to help them make wise decisions not make special laws to pretend they are dumb and are incapable of making the proper decisions.
____

your really should keep your comparisons within reason: the israelis are not the nazis (your either ignorant of what the nazis did, or ignorant of life under the occupation-either way, your comparison is wrong-hamas rule is probably closer to the nazis).....you seem to ignore that fact that those Palestenians living within israel are not revolting, they prefer israel and those in the westbank are hardly starving, those doing the executing are by their own govt (PA) and those in gaza are ruled by their own- and executing their own as well. (but its the govt they chose correct?)

the Palestinians in the territories will eventually get their own independance, they just have to figure out how to work it out with the israelis (trying to kill israelis has proven NOT to be a very good strategy-intifada I was a good start).

and this is not true:
You seem to have difficulty accepting that that some people would suffer anything to avoid being ruled by an aliens
Most people prefer to live their lives in security, which is why after wars, the twos sides quickly go back to normal lives, the refugees get settled and the "loser' picks up their pieces and rebuilds. The Palestinians are infact the exception to this standard, the reasons are interesting and belong to their 'friends" as opposed to their own wishes.


btw you skipped over the most interesting part:
what would have been your suggestion to the jews of europe pre and post WWII-given the jew quotas that were in place all over the world. And what exactly did they do wrong in going to the authorities who ruled the land in order to purchase it..
___

no you were not clear at all, in fact you were vague- I"ll simplify it:
Given the situation in europe pre and post WWII (and what was in store for them), were the jews morally correct in moving to Palestine either legally or illegally? and were there morally/legally correct in buying the land through the standard accepted standards of the day (which is the same standards used today).

[kayecy]

117. So lets have no more talk about 90% of Palestinians wanting to live under Zionist rule....

...as far as what the Palestinians would have voted in pre 48...probably to be ruled by their own....

So lets have no more talk about 90% of Palestinians wanting to live under Zionist rule....There were no Israeli Palestinians in 1920 and the Zionists were not concerned what they wanted.
btw: Has anyone ever done a poll amongst Israeli Palestinians to see, if they could turn the clock back, would they have welcomed Zionists in the 20s?

You seem to have difficulty accepting that that some people would suffer anything to avoid being ruled by an aliens
Most people prefer to live their lives in security, which is why after wars, the twos sides quickly go back to normal lives, the refugees get settled and the "loser' picks up their pieces and rebuilds. The Palestinians are infact the exception to this standard,

I can agree with you there...The two sides quickly go back to normal except when the losing side has a strong case the it is the victim of agression....The Palestinians have such a case.

....no you were not clear at all, in fact you were vague- I"ll simplify it:
Given the situation in europe pre and post WWII (and what was in store for them), were the jews morally correct in moving to Palestine either legally or illegally?

Of course they were not morally correct!...How could they be in a situation where one party gains at the other's expense?...That does not mean that persecuted Jews were not forced to grab any opportunity there was...I have already said that had I been a Russian Jew suffering persecution, I might have done the same...However, I hope that had I done so, I would now accept that I had a responsibility to make whatever amends I could...Precious few Israelis seem to have such moral scruples.

[pelsar]

118. so what was the moral action?

You claim their decision was not moral...so what was the moral decision to make?

Your a jew in germany with extended family and a very moral person....1930's the zionist tell you whats in store for you and you believe them....
whats your decision?
____

Your becoming clearer, if i understand you correctly any action where one party gains at the others expense is immoral.

so if someone buys a candy at a lower price than is standard, the one who is selling who is getting less, is being taken advantage of, subsequently the action is immoral....is that a good example?


______

Has anyone ever done a poll amongst Israeli Palestinians to see, if they could turn the clock back, would they have welcomed Zionists in the 20s?

that is exactly the poll taken of the israeli arabs: if it was 1920 and they could choose between zionist democracy or arab dictatorship, they have made their choice clear. They may not haven known it then, but the after the fact they're preferences are clear. Accept it, israeli arabs prefer the zionists government (so do some gazans and westbankers as well btw)

[kayecy]

120. I would try to get to any Western country...How many Jews did Britain turn back in the 1930s?...

...that is exactly the poll taken of the israeli arabs: if it was 1920 and they could choose between zionist democracy or arab dictatorship

It just shows how careful if you to be with poll questions....That was not my question at all...I asked "would they have welcomed Zionists in the 20s?"...Inserting "Zionist democracy" and a fictitious "Arab dictatorship" distorts the real 1920s choice.

...Your a jew in germany with extended family and a very moral person....1930's the zionist tell you whats in store for you and you believe them....whats your decision?

I would try to get to any Western country...How many Jews did Britain or France turn back in the 1930s?...However, lets suppose time was running out and someone offered me a place on a ship to Palestine....As I said, I would probably take it but since it was already clear that the locals, just like the US etc, did not want Jewish refugees, I would be embarrassed at having to impose myself on them....I would realise that I had taken advantage of their weakness...No one was prepared to accept me but I had got into Palestine because, unlike the US, Palestine did not have a navy to stop me...

Since I now owed my life to this Palestinian weakness I would feel morally obliged to do whatever I could to help them...Employ them on the land the early Zionists had kicked them off..... Explain how the Jews could negotiate on their behalf with the Brits to achieve a representative democracy...A Representative democracy in which the Arabs would continue to be in the majority.
.
If I could not get my fellow Jews to support me in such actions I would feel obliged to emigrate as soon as it was possible to do so....I would certainly take no part in carving a Jewish state out of Palestine.
.
.

...Your becoming clearer, if i understand you correctly any action where one party gains at the others expense is immoral

Yes - But not in normal business transactions - The Zionists first forced themselves into the candy-shop, tried to occupy the whole premises and when that wouldn't work, they kicked the candy-man upstairs and bolted the door...Not very moral, was it?

[pelsar]

122. now some real history....

I would try to get to any Western country.
you can stop with the fantasies....we all know the jews were trapped, thats the history

and not always true....
ince I now owed my life to this Palestinian weakness I would feel morally obliged to do whatever I could to help them...Employ them on the land the early Zionists had kicked them off

example zichron yaacov, the arabs worked with the jews.....in the galile , the same...until arab irregulars started killing the jewish farmers.....
___

so now are you going to defend yourself? now that your being attacked and of course you dont have anywhere to immigrate to, after WWII the world was full of refugees immigrating every which way...and the jew quota was quickly filled up....so your stuck and people want to kill you....(again).

Your again faced with a moral dilemma, be killed (and perhaps your new family or those orphaned kids from the camps that your now in charge of....are you going to do your best to protect them?...or leave them to their fate? (btw these are real life scenarios, not my imagination).

at this point the arab irregulars had already shown that they can kill unarmed farmers.....

now whats the "moral" choice......

[kayecy]

125. Where do you get your history from?........

...you can stop with the fantasies....we all know the jews were trapped, thats the history

Where do you get your history from?...The UK Jewish Museum states the following:
"However, in the 1930s, large numbers of German Jews emigrated, fearing for their lives under the Nazi regime. Some 60,000 Jewish refugees came to Britain, with 10,000 children..."

..example zichron yaacov, the arabs worked with the jews.....in the galile , the same...until arab irregulars started killing the jewish farmers.....

If you emigrate to a land with a civil war, what do you expect?...A little thought on the part of even the most right-wing Zionist should convince him that conflict with the Palestinians was inevitable with the flood of Jewish refugees...If your Zionist had just a little humanity and a few moral scruples he would realise that the Palestinian was doing no more than the mighty US would do and with a damn site more to fear from the Zionist domination.

The moral choice is clear...Practice self-defense when you have to, but you remain unwanted in their land and are morally obliged to do whatever you can to help their situation.

[pelsar]

127. come on...your avoiding the moral dilemma....

the pre and post WWII jews emigrated...but not all, those quotas were filled up and jews were stuck in germany and post WWII in DP camps, and the russian jews were really stuck since they have even a worse time getting out....and of course some didnt believe what was happening....

___

but you avoided the moral choices....lets get back to them.....you've now in Palestine, taking care of holocaust orphaned children, who look up to you for warmth and love (you are their mother figure). Your kibbutz/moshav or the area gets sporadic attacks from the arabs, the massive number of survivors of the holocaust means more orphaned children will be coming, the worlds quotas for jews has now been filled.....

are you going to try to leave (dont know if you can).....leave those kids? leave the concentration camps survivors who are coming now, to what may be what hitler didnt finish?

what are you going to actually do?-----no vague answers allowed
stay or leave? help guard the childrens house at night or refuse?



your abit short on history of the various areas where there was no fighting.....why dont you know about these areas?-you seem to have some idea, that all arabs and all jews were always fighting, that zionist were alway stealing land, when in fact it the fighting was only in some areas, you should do some reading of the areas where there was no fighting or where is was limited and learn why)

btw you never did give a clear answer: if the jews bought the land legally from the owners, by first going to the controlling govt....how was that wrong and how would they have know that it was morally wrong?

and is this true where you live: if someone buys a condo on land that was once owned by poorer people that were kicked out, are the new owners also morally wrong (this happens a lot in downtown areas in cities, when they renew the innercities)

[kayecy]

131. Is that a sufficiently non-vague answer for you?.......

Pelsar:

...the pre and post WWII jews emigrated...but not all, those quotas were filled up and jews were stuck in germany and post WWII in DP camps, and the russian jews were really stuck since they have even a worse time getting out....and of course some didnt believe what was happening....

You originally asked me what I would do if I had been a German Jew in the 1930 .....You then made an unjustified attack on me by saying..."...you can stop with the fantasies....we all know the jews were trapped, thats the history"....Can I take it that you have now retracted that accusation?

Now you jump to 1946 and tell me I am avoiding a moral dilemma...OK, let me see if I can satisfy you on that one....First some facts:
1. From the US Holocaust Museum:
1945-1952.....250,000 dps in camps.
"After liberation, the Allies were prepared to repatriate Jewish dps to their homes but many dps refused or felt unable to return."
1948...Congress authorises 200,000 dps to enter the US
1952...80,000 Jewish dps have immigrated to the US
1952...20,000 to other nations
1952...136,000 to Israel/Palestine

2. From Dr Michael Brenner's paper - Refugees, Exiles & Resettlement:
"The prevailing Zionist ideology among the leaders and the masses of the DPs made it difficult for those who preferred other destinations to make their preference public. They were seen as traitors. The Central Committee of Liberated Jews in the American Zone even refused to allow a group of orphans to accept an invitation to well-to-do homes in England and France."

Now what would I have done?....Well, what were my alternatives:
a) Go back to my bombed out home in Germany, Poland or wherever - Not very attractive but lots of dps eventually did.
b) Wait for Congress to authorise 200,000 dps - Quite attractive really.
c) Go to Israel/Palestine - Well the Zionists and Ben Gurion etc said it was a great place, so why not?

My point is that there were choices other than Palestine but if an ordinary dp Jew chose to go to Israel/Palestine, he was not being moral or immoral, he probably did not know there were arabs there already...Certainly the Zionist leaders would not tell him.

Is that a sufficiently non-vague answer for you?

btw you never did give a clear answer: if the jews bought the land legally from the owners, by first going to the controlling govt....how was that wrong and how would they have know that it was morally wrong?....and is this true where you live: if someone buys a condo on land that was once owned by poorer people that were kicked out, are the new owners also morally wrong (this happens a lot in downtown areas in cities, when they renew the innercities)

Hey, I have got to have time to eat and sleep!....Have patience and I will (as always) answer you... Meanwhile, don't ask me any more questions until I have answered the above and here are two questions for you:
1. Do you know how many 1933 German Jews tried and failed to leave Germany before Hitler banned emigration in 1941?

2. I have tried to find the source of your claim that "polls show that 95% of Israeli-arabs would have welcomed Zionists."...Can you give me a reference please?

[pelsar]

132. the polls:

I realize these goes against every fiber of your body, but these people live in reality and obviously are more concerned about their own personal security, freedom and economics and quality of life--and probably dont really care much for nice little UN reports, or nice westerners who tell them how they should be living or what they should be doing...-thats one of the nice things about democracies......people who live in them, tend to prefer them over dictatorships....(and the reality of 48 was that the Palestinians left on their own, or at the mercy of invading arab armies were not going to get a democracy nor even have a say in what they would 'get."

not to mention that these arab citizens didnt have their "land stolen" by the zionists or have nazi like occupation (as you wrote several times)....

and if you read the articles and polls, you'll discover that israel is a very "not equal democracy, with plenty of protesting going on....and constant improvements as well.......


one new poll:

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12938.htm

A recent survey by Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government found that 77 percent of Israeli Arabs prefer to live in Israel rather than any other country.
__________________________

the over 90% came out when lieberman proposed to trade land with the PA, the settlements stay in israel and part of israel now goes to the PA, including Umm al-Fahm a very active anti israeli govt town..

the response from the major was "no way"....it was in the hebrew papers and i did find it once on the internet..it will take some looking..

_____________

in the meantime there is in fact more info: (it doesnt get much attention, since in israel its obvious and only comes up when the far right brings up transfer)...

you might try listening to the those who actually live in israel and what they prefer, as opposed to "telling them" what they should believe or what they should be doing...





http://www.meforum.org/702/the-hell-of-israel-is-better-than-the-paradise

ust 30 percent of Israel's Arab population, a May 2001 survey found, agree to the Galilee Triangle being annexed to a future Palestinian state, meaning that a large majority prefers to remain in Israel.<26> By February 2004, according to the Haifa-based Arab Center for Applied Social Research, that number had jumped to 90 percent preferring to remain in Israel. No less startling, 73 percent of Triangle Arabs said they would resort to violence to prevent changes in the border. Their reasons divided fairly evenly between those claiming Israel as their homeland (43 percent) and those cherishing Israel's higher standard of living (33 percent).<27> So intense was the Arab opposition to ceding the Galilee Triangle to the Palestinian Authority that Sharon quickly gave the idea up.

The issue arose a bit later in 2004 as Israel built its security fence. Some Palestinians, like Umm al-Fahm's Ahmed Jabrin, 67, faced a choice on which side of the fence to live. He had no doubts. "We fought to be inside of the fence, and they moved it so we are still in Israel. We have many links to Israel. What have we to do with the Palestinian Authority?"<28> His relative, Hisham Jabrin, 31, added: "We are an integral part of Israel and will never be part of a Palestinian state. We have always lived in Israel and there is absolutely no chance that that will change."<29>

you will note all the quotes are footnoted where they come from...if you have a problem with the quotes please specify which ones exactly
________

your question:
Do you know how many 1933 German Jews tried and failed to leave Germany before Hitler banned emigration in 1941?
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/eu/D/EndJud_juden-in-Deutschland-05-3R-1933-1939-ENGL.html
304,500 got out

In last years before WW II the regulations in the European countries were harsh against the Jews.

against those numbers: 6 million were killed

[kayecy]

133. All the Harvard poll is saying is that 77% of Israeli Arabs prefer to stay in their birth land.....

Pelsar:

A recent survey by Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government found that 77 percent of Israeli Arabs prefer to live in Israel rather than any other country.

Thank you for those references, but forgive me if I am cynical about poll results... All the Harvard poll is saying is that 77% of Israeli Arabs prefer to stay in the land where they were born rather than any other country....Do you find that surprising?...

Compare those results to Du-Et, June 2005 poll asking the question: “Has Israel the right to exist as a Jewish Zionist state?”....Answers:...14% YES...71% NO.

Q: Do you know how many 1933 German Jews tried and failed to leave Germany before Hitler banned emigration in 1941?
A: 304,500 got out

My figures from various sources are similar but show 95,000 to the USA up to 1941 when Hitler banned further emigration:
523,000 Jews in Germany in 1933
95,000 emigrated to the US
60,000 to Palestine
40,000 to Britain
75,000 to central & South America
18,000 to China

By 1941 there were 163,000 Jews left in Germany ( ie 31%)

From these figure I conclude that the maximum number of Jews unable to emigrate from Germany was 31%...However, many Jews misguidedly chose to remain in Germany and hope things would get better – how many, we shall never know...My point is that the majority of German Jews had choices, only one of which was to emigrate to Palestine where the population was too weak to stop them


And now to answer one of your previous questions:

....and is this true where you live: if someone buys a condo on land that was once owned by poorer people that were kicked out, are the new owners also morally wrong...

I'm glad you asked me that...As you know, Cyprus is split in half – The UN recognised Greek area and the unrecognised Turkish area occupied by Turks since 1974...Many Brits have purchased land in the Turkish area, quite legally according to the Turks...Some Greeks have old title deeds to this land and are demanding the Brits knock down their villas and leave the land...In the case known as the ‘Oram’ case, the Greek courts have ruled that the Brits’ purchase of previously owned Greek land was illegal (even though perfectly legal according to the Turks) and the original Greek owners must therefore be compensated...

Now you may say that a ruling by a Greek-Cypriot court hardly makes an international precedent but in fact the European Court has now ruled that a court judgment by Cyprus or any other EU member must be enforced by all EU members without questioning the validity of the judgement....The result is that the Greek owner can now apply to British courts to seize the British assets of the purchaser (the Orams) in lieu of compensation!

This judgment may even have implications for Israelis owning assets in the EU...If say a Palestinian brings a case in the Greek courts against a settler for living on the land owned by the Palestinian, and the Greek court rules against the settler, the Israeli’s assets are at risk of being seized anywhere in the EU!

[pelsar]

134. you read the polls wrong.....

Galilee Triangle being annexed to a future Palestinian state, meaning that a large majority prefers to remain in Israel.<26> By February 2004, according to the Haifa-based Arab Center for Applied Social Research, that number had jumped to 90 percent preferring to remain in Israel. No less startling, 73 percent of Triangle Arabs said they would resort to violence to prevent changes in the border.

the question is not whether they physically will be moved...the israeli arabs dont move..only the border moves and they are then living under the PA govt and not israel.

they prefer israel.

_____

again its pretty clear to me that you have a real hard time with the concept that arabs would prefer to live under israel rule then arab rule....perhaps you might come to terms with the concept that people prefer freedom and democracy over the other options, no matter how it came about?....this is at least true in the middle east and i suspect over the world as well.

do you think you know better than those that actually live there?

[kayecy]

136. I could say the same about you but at least I offered a reasonable interpretation.........

...you read the polls wrong..

I could say the same about you but where does that get us?...First you quote a Harvard poll and I give you a reasonable interpretation – You offer no reason why my interpretation is wrong.

I give you a Du-Et poll showing 71% of Israeli-Arabs think Israel has no right to exist as a Zionist state....You offer no interpretation but simply counter with another poll you have found.


Even though you have ignored the Du-Ex poll, I will endeavour to show you, yet again, that poll results are not quite so black and white as you seem to think:

By February 2004, according to the Haifa-based Arab Center for Applied Social Research, that number had jumped to 90 percent preferring to remain in Israel.

First of all let us get closer to what the poll results were. (I suspect you got your version from Daniel Pipes – not the most unbiased of bloggers!)...I believe the result wording was more like this:
“…more than 90% of surveyed Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel who live in the “Triangle” area along the Green line…..oppose the proposed land exchange.”

Note: They did not say “they preferred to stay in Israel”, merely that they opposed the land exchange...I suggest there could be many reasons for them doing that:
1. If they work in Israel, land exchange would cause them to lose their jobs.
2. If they have relatives in other parts of Israel they would lose contact with them.
3. After 40 years of occupation, the West Bank is in a mess – not a very attractive option.
4. They may wish not to help Zionists overcome the Israel's demographic time-bomb.

You seem to think Israeli-Arabs want to continue to be ruled by Zionists...With the alternatives available, you could well be right, but how do you explain the fact that the majority of all Palestinians west of the Jordan do not seem to want to live under Zionist rule?

According to you, all Israel has to do is to give the West Bankers “freedom and democracy” and they will then vote to be ruled by Zionists...If this were true, the conflict would be solved and Israel/Palestine would become the world’s only democratically elected oligarchy!

However, whatever the majority of Palestinians vote for is fine by me.

....perhaps you might come to terms with the concept that people prefer freedom and democracy over the other options, no matter how it came about?

I am a freedom lover, a democrat and an internationalist...It seems to me that you, on the other hand, only want democracy in Israel/Palestine when it suits you....ie when you have engineered a majority for one particular race.


I challenge you to prove me wrong.

[pelsar]

138. now try being a realist...

do you actually believe that, in the present culture with in the arab world the Palestenians will produce a real democracy with freedom of expression, freedom of speech etc?

have you seen the PA recently, Hamas in Gaza..how are you going to excuse the PA and hamas for now allowing such basic freedoms that are inherent in democracies? (i.e. holding hands in public, ability to criticize the govt, etc)...since i am sure your going to blame the "zionists' on it, please be specific as to what exactly the zionists are doing to prevent it..

given that realistic view of the landscape....its pretty difficult to imagine people who actually do live in a democracy willing and peacefully moving over to corrupts dictatorships...

you seem to think people do that sort of thing willingly .....

_____
some basics your obviously not aware of:
israeli arabs have multiple and contradictory identities:
many see themselves as Palestinians, protest israel, join in the nakba protest....and volunteer for the army, national service.....so like in all democracies they may protest the character of the state, yet they have no intention of leaving.....

the druz on the other hand (do you know who they are?), requested to be drafted in 48 (and are).....and the Bedouin also protest, have had their land appropriated by the state, yet they too are active in israeli democratic life, the IDF etc

and neither of those groups want to live under arab muslim rule......since under those rulers, in the neighboring countries they do not do "so well." This adds another complication to your view point:Arab rule does not treat them well, under the zionists, they again have more freedoms....(do they not count in your view?)

simple questions:
if the zionists had lost in 48 or had not come in mass post 48, do you believe the Palestinians would be living in a democracy? (i realize this is hypothetical)

________

i wont claim that the Palestinians all want to live under "zionist rule" most probably prefer to live in democracies, and israel is in fact, the only one in the region. Though i can't prove it, i just believe that democracies are the preferred type of rule, no matter who is the actual majority, and that its also to be protected, since its not easy to achieve nor protect.

what is an internationalist?...someone that believes their are types of govts that are better or more appropriate then democracies? (if true does that mean you defend hanging homosexuals, protecting racist laws etc?)

[kayecy]

139. A simple answer to a simple question is all I require....

I’m not sure what I have said that makes you think I am not a realist but allow me correct some of your impressions:

….do you actually believe that, in the present culture with in the arab world the Palestenians will produce a real democracy with freedom of expression, freedom of speech etc?

No I don’t…Especially after 90 years of conflict and 40 years of occupation.

..its pretty difficult to imagine people who actually do live in a democracy willing and peacefully moving over to corrupts dictatorships...

You are probably right.

simple questions:
if the zionists had lost in 48 or had not come in mass post 48, do you believe the Palestinians would be living in a democracy? (i realize this is hypothetical)

simple answer:
I don’t know….What I do know is that Zionists (who think so highly of democracy) didn’t give them the choice.

...i just believe that democracies are the preferred type of rule, no matter who is the actual majority…

You think democracies are the preferred rule, but strangely, it doesn’t seem to apply to Zionists….at least, not until they are sure of a Zionist majority!

...what is an internationalist?...someone that believes their are types of govts that are better or more appropriate then democracies?

No….I used the term ‘internationalist’ to indicate I have no racial or national preferment…Perhaps ‘international humanist’ would be more accurate.


Now, I am still waiting for you to prove me wrong on the following:

...It seems to me that you, on the other hand, only want democracy in Israel/Palestine when it suits you....ie when you have engineered a majority for one particular race.

Let me simplify the question for you….If you had lived in the period 1967-68 when Israel had expanded its borders to the river Jordon, crushed all attempts at resistance and the IDF had ensured ‘freedom’ for everyone (I am being hypothetical here!)…Would you have welcomed the opportunity to have universal political rights and democracy in the expanded state of Israel/Palestine?

Some 40% of Israel/Palestine would then have been non-Jews.

A simple answer to a simple question is all I require.

[pelsar]

140. one answer and one question..

I asked:
.do you actually believe that, in the present culture with in the arab world the Palestenians will produce a real democracy with freedom of expression, freedom of speech etc?

No I don’t…Especially after 90 years of conflict and 40 years of occupation

why not? in fact it was during the occupation when the Palestenians actually learned about civil rights, human rights etc....seems to me they are quite well educated in that area, so what exactly is preventing them from producing a democracy or at least a society that is based on civil rights?
________

You asked:
Let me simplify the question for you….If you had lived in the period 1967-68 when Israel had expanded its borders to the river Jordon, crushed all attempts at resistance and the IDF had ensured ‘freedom’ for everyone (I am being hypothetical here!)…Would you have welcomed the opportunity to have universal political rights and democracy in the expanded state of Israel/Palestine?

Some 40% of Israel/Palestine would then have been non-Jews.

i personally would not have "welcomed" the opportunity to expand israels borders, no...i would have preferred that israel have left as soon as possible... if israel (as in the golan and e. jerusalem) appropriates the land, the inhabitants must be made into citizens and get full rights. The westbank and gaza are not, nor should they be part of israel, and the sooner the PA gets full control the better.

_____

i skipped this part before:

According to you, all Israel has to do is to give the West Bankers “freedom and democracy” and they will then vote to be ruled by Zionists...If this were true, the conflict would be solved and Israel/Palestine would become the world’s only democratically elected oligarchy!

thats a simplest version. Israel arabs, have expressed many times their confidence in their govt, they also vote the arab block (this does not inlcude the druze or bedouin), due to a very strong culture, a block of politicians that run their business based on tribal loyalties far more than democratic values.

btw if the Palestinians did vote an did vote in the jews (as some arabs who live in israel do)...why are you so derogatory toward them (oligarchy?)..you seem to have a strong lack of tolerance for those you disagree with.....this lack of tolerance, (comparing israelis to nazis....) is it just zionists or others (turks, brits, russians, americans etc)

[kayecy]

143. You misunderstand my question........I am trying to find out whether you really are a democrat....

Pelsar:

...i personally would not have "welcomed" the opportunity to expand israels borders, no...

You misunderstand my question…I am trying to find out whether you really are a democrat....Annexing the Golan and East Jerusalem did not, of course, threaten the Zionist majority...I was posing a hypothetical question where Israel had already expanded its borders and annexed all the land up to the river Jordan with the result that the non-Jewish majority would be increased to about 40%.

kayecy:...Would you have welcomed the opportunity to have universal political rights and democracy in the expanded state of Israel/Palestine?

Do you think you could answer my hypothetical question?

...you seem to have a strong lack of tolerance for those you disagree with.....this lack of tolerance, (comparing israelis to nazis....) is it just zionists or others (turks, brits, russians, americans etc)

You are entitled to your opinion….I consider myself very balanced and not at all intolerant…I do, however, have a strong sense of ‘fair-play’.

I am aware of Jewish sensitivities to comparisons with Nazis and I try my best to avoid making such comparisons...If you look back at the comparison I made (Message 113 & 114), you will find that I was comparing the likely starving of blockaded Brits with those of Vichy French……If that comparisons offended you, I apologise.

As to Zionists, Turks, Brits, Russians, Americans…I hope I would be equally critical of them whenever they carry out inhuman, unfair or immoral actions, blockade civilians or indulge in occupations lasting decades.

Can you state with your hand on your heart, that you would be equally critical of Israel?

[pelsar]

145. critical of Israel?

I am incredibly critical of israel....i find many of the politicians to be pathetic, the political system a hybird of european and american systems to be broken.....i am also very aware of a country where when the politicians approve some kind of military action, that they are sending not just their sons to war, but their grandchildren as well....when missiles fall on israel, more often than not their own houses are in danger....these put a different light on their decisions....but that doesnt seem to stop their own corruption and the lack of real representation...but thats another area.

your probably interested more in the israeli govt vs the Palestenians. First I dont want israel to annex the westbank:

Palestenians nationalism is way beyond any logic of what type of govt and will it be democratic...(it should be clear by now that it wont - gaza and the pa for examples), therefore they should, govern themselves....and live in what will be a dictatorship of sorts. Furthermore, they cant be part of israel without disrupting and endangering the democratic process that israel has in place, not to mention the culture war that would follow and it leading to a civil war.

So israel has to leave..if its stays, there is no choice but to make the Palestinians citizens.

as far as israels treatment of arab israelis, its far from perfect, no democracy is...but it is a work in progress and arab israelis have made it clear where their preferences are. Probably the single most important indication is their volunteer service in the IDF or in National service, both indicate a willingness to put forth special effort to preserve the state.....

The Palestenians in gaza and the westbank, unfortunately are mere pawns, in a larger game of intl politics. And this is probably where we disagree: They are infact responsible for their actions and friends...and it doesnt matter what the excuses or reasons are. The jews pre 48 were in a far worse situation and took it upon themselves to create the "hated' zionist movement, which lead to an independent state...fair or not fair they succeeded in the goals. The Palestinians still have that same opportunity with far more intl support than the jews did, they just have to be smart about how to get there, so far they havent. They have far more allies within israel than is acknowledged, which is why intifada I succeeded.....


if you noticed i care less for nationalism (or the "rights" of the indigenous people") and more for western civil rights.... unfortunately for the jews it appears that the world has a problem with them (for reasons that are obviously bizarre). Whereas israel with a jewish majority is constantly improving with its minorities, is pretty clear that jews within an arab majority will not have that improvement or guarantee of equal civil rights. If an when the non jewish population is the majority and they decide to change the character of israel via voting in their reps it will be within their rights.

as far as comparisons to nazis go, im not particularly sensitive to the comparisons, i just find the comparisons to be absurd: gassing and killing 6 million, hearding millions into ghettos where they actually starved to death, with rampant disease etc and then comparing those acts to israeli actions is simply propaganda....there is no realistic comparison. The only reason to do it, is if one wants to push the "israel is evil" mantra. (Occupations can be compared if one is trying to understand them and their variations)
___

I get the impression with you, that you are less concerned for an individuals civil rights (western) and more concerned with a peoples culture and historical heritage an that preservation...i.e. western culture, civil rights, etc are not THE most important matter....culture is.

[kayecy]

148. If you do not intend answering my question, please say so....

I am incredibly critical of israel....i find many of the politicians to be pathetic, the political system a hybird of european and american systems to be broken.....

I am glad to hear you say that but my question referred to Israeli, Russian, American etc governments whenever they carry out inhuman, unfair or immoral actions, blockade civilians or indulge in occupations lasting decades....Can you say you hold Israel to the same standards as you hold other states and are equally critical when Israel carries out such actions?


To get back to my challenge...I am beginning to think you do not want to answer my 'democracy' question...
I posed a hypothetical situation similar to the one in 1967-68...Israel had already expanded its borders and annexed all the land up to the river Jordan with the result that the non-Jewish majority would be increased to about 40%...

I then asked:

kayecy:...Would you have welcomed the opportunity to have universal political rights and democracy in the expanded state of Israel/Palestine?

If you do not intend answering my question, please say so.

[pelsar]

149. i thought i did...will try again....

you asked if israel annexed the land in the westbank would i welcome the opportunity to increase political rights to more people....i would not welcome it, in this case, since i dont believe the israeli democracy would last..i think it would be short term as in hamas getting elected (as in gaza or the PA) and eliminating the anything that even hints of freedom and democracy.

if in your hypothetical the democracy would last, then i would have no problem with it


Can you say you hold Israel to the same standards as you hold other states and are equally critical when Israel carries out such actions?

the answer is yes..and when i look at the US, turkey, the UK, Russian and any other country in the world past and present, i find israeli actions to be very limited to the point of not accomplishing the long term goal. You wouldnt want to compare countries when they are attacked to israeli actions (what country would take over 6,000 missiles from its neighbor and not invade completely...nor do you want to compare different occupations since again the israeli version you will find to be far less violent that others when confronted with attacks.

for all of the immoral actions, i doubt very much you can provide solutions that would actually work, infact i wonder if you know the history of the process that resulted in the those very actions...

I'm curious, did you know that pre intifada I there were virtually no roadblocks, just a few in various places with simple or no checks?...do you know why intifada I succeeded and intifada II failed so miserably?


are you judging Israeli actions without looking at what caused them and what was the result?

some here absolve the Palestinians of any and all responsibility for their actions.....do you believe they are responsible for their actions (attacks on Israelis)

______

i consider myself a liberal, not a progressive, one that believes that everyone has responsibility for their actions, a single standard to be applied to everyone, and that civil rights, western democracies are the best governing style, and that they are to be defeneded against those that wish to destroy them (even using illiberal methods to a degree). Also, all other govts are in affect occupational govts, and i dont care what their genetic makeup is or history is and are illegal.

[kayecy]

153. None of us can tell the future, but with a Jewish-dominated IDF in charge ......

....if israel annexed the land in the westbank ...i would not welcome it…. since i dont believe the israeli democracy would last….

None of us can tell the future, but with a Jewish-dominated IDF in charge I see no reason why you think democracy and freedom in Israel/Palestine would not continue…Of course the ‘Law of Return’ would have to be torn up but such racial engineering is not normally acceptable in a democracy.

...if in your hypothetical the democracy would last, then i would have no problem with it

Now that is looking much more democratic…It’s a pity you had to qualify your answer with an ‘if’ clause requiring the services of a fortune-teller.

...nor do you want to compare different occupations since again the israeli version you will find to be far less violent that others when confronted with attacks.

True in the case of Chechnya...But which occupations by western states did you have in mind?....When was the last time a western state continued to occupy a people for 40 years?

...what country would take over 6,000 missiles from its neighbor and not invade completely...

Probably none...But which western state would then go on to force aid-agencies to restrict food-aid to the victims of the invasion?...Remember the US Marshal plan after WW2?

I'm curious, did you know that pre intifada I there were virtually no roadblocks, just a few in various places with simple or no checks?...do you know why intifada I succeeded and intifada II failed so miserably?

Virtually no roadblocks but mass development of settlements from 1981 on wards, encouraged by Sharon and paid for by the Israeli government.

...do you know why intifada I succeeded and intifada II failed so miserably?

In what way did Intifada 1 succeed?

[pelsar]

156. utopia is not here yet....

if israel annexed the westbank, gave all the inhabitants citizenship, the army would no longer be dominated by jews, it would be one of all the citizens. In a utopia world, the country would then exist as do all democracies with minorities and majorities, in this case possible arab, which in principle in a democracy is no problem..except that in the real world, with real cultures, looking around at the arab world, including the present Palestinian govts...it should be clear that the democracy that is israel, would not last.......and thats not worth the risk

its is that imperfect world that was and is the motivation for israel and the present state of anti-Semitism and hysterical anti zionism/israeli sentiments, only strengthens the view of many that little has changed and that the jews have a need for israel.

But which occupations by western states did you have in mind? i dont accept double standards....when comparing occupations i'm comparing chinas, russias, japans, turkeys, Frances, UK, Hamas, Hizballa, and every other occupation and how the occupier behaved toward the population. Israel has one of the more benign occupations.

_____

now a history lesson and some real info:

Intifada i succeeded in getting the avg israel to accept the idea of a Palestenians state and their self rule....something intifada II pushed off and gaza virtually killed it.

Intifada I was a grass roots uprising by the Palestinians. Intifada I was relativly non violent (stones, Molotov cocktails etc) but and most important, limited to the territories. The reservists who were sent to the territories to defend the settlers and break up protests, did not agree with the govt policies and soon stopped going to reserve service....israel was not in danger. This gray protest worked its way up the IDF and into the political echelon....this gave way to acceptance of the concept of a Palestinian state, brought in oslo and partial self rule....

That was a success. The failure came with intifada II..the Palestinians started to attack and kill israelis within the green line-that remotivated the reservists, who saw their families and themselves in real danger...and of course after leaving gaza and getting 6,000+ missiles in return, well, they lost all of the undestanding that came with intifada I


i believe the Palestinians have responsibilities: and are smart enough to understand the concept of consequences for one actions.....and this is where the short history shows just how the Palestinians have manipulated nice gullible westerners:

previous to the invasion of gaza, hamas and friends would shoot kassams trying to kill israelis or attack the border points where supplies were delivered. Israel would close the borders when attacked and open them when not. This simple cause and effect was clear to the israelis and clear to hamas, it wasnt clear to many in the west of which many claimed that hamas doesnt control everybody.

now were after the invasion, virtually no kassans and an uninterrupted food supply...see how that works? Hamas doesnt shoot, they get supplies, they try to kill israelis the borders are shut....seems to me thats pretty reasonsable: dont try to kill us and we'll open the borders

why does that simple bit of responsibility bother you?

[kayecy]

159. If, one day, the non-Jewish population of Israel rose to 40%, the Israeli government will do what?..

if israel annexed the westbank, gave all the inhabitants citizenship, the army would no longer be dominated by jews, it would be one of all the citizens. In a utopia world, the country would then exist as do all democracies with minorities and majorities, in this case possible arab, which in principle in a democracy is no problem..except that in the real world, with real cultures, looking around at the arab world, including the present Palestinian govts...it should be clear that the democracy that is israel, would not last.......and thats not worth the risk

So you are only a ‘democrat’ when the majority has the right ‘genes’?...If, one day, the non-Jewish population of Israel rose to 40%, what would you want the Israeli government to do?....be democratic?...enforce population ‘transfer’?....

....when comparing occupations i'm comparing chinas, russias, japans, turkeys, Frances, UK, Hamas, Hizballa, and every other occupation and how the occupier behaved toward the population.

I’m glad to hear that....Now, can you be more specific and answer my question?....Which other western state has occupied a people for 40 years?...Which other western state has prevented aid agencies from delivering food-aid?

Intifada i succeeded in getting the avg israel to accept the idea of a Palestinians state and their self rule....

Ha’aretz September 9, 1998 quote:
... the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. That percentage increased from 47% in December 1994 to 53% in August 1998 and to 55.6% in March 1999

Some acceptance!....

Intifada I was relativly non violent (stones, Molotov cocktails etc)

Thank you for your history lesson, but now let us look at some facts:
1,135 Palestinian killed by Israel in the 5 years since Intifada 1 began
415 Palestinians deported....(More of your civil rights?)
West-bank and Gaza sealed off in 1993 with protracted curfews by the IDF.

I like your idea of ‘non-violent’!

....after the invasion, (of Gaza) virtually no kassans and an uninterrupted food supply...see how that works? Hamas doesnt shoot, they get supplies

Uninterrupted food-supply? – Don’t you read the news?....Netanyahu only now agreed not to obstruct food supplies!...As for building-supplies, they are restricted like never before.

[pelsar]

160. try again.....

So you are only a ‘democrat’ when the majority has the right ‘genes’?.

i am a liberal that believes that democracies have to be protected....and that demands being aware of realities: (its not genes, its culture that defines democracy). There now is a strong cultural difference between arab israelsi and Palestinians of the PA....which is why they dont want to be part of the PA and prefer living in israel. If arab israelis get more additional political strength, and make changes that is their right.

to clarify our stands, you can answer the following questions:

hamas was elected as the majority...and since their rule they have eliminated what was left of any hint of democracy in gaza.....its doubtful that there will be elections.

do yo believe the elections were in fact a good idea?


Iran 1979, had a revolution against a dictator that many westerners supported (the revolution)...that revolution, which is in fact (and always was) a theocratic dictatorship that has hung little girls for having a big mouth, mass hangings etc.....

do you believe it was right to support the revolution

(and dont forget that after the new dictatorships take over and power is consolidated....change only comes via violence)
____

Which other western state has occupied a people for 40 years?...Which other western state has prevented aid agencies from delivering food-aid?

that question has no real worth, its a loaded question: the answer As far as i know: none to the occupation.....
do you actually believe that the Palestinians are starving?... (where are the pictures)

your turn what other people have developed a culture where targeting women and children is the goal by suicide bomber and then celebrating the killer by putting posters of him or her all over the city or naming a sporting event after him? What other culture celebrates a person who takes a little girl and bashes her head in with the but of his rifle? what other culture do you know of celebrates those who go to intl sporting that is to celebrate people living and competing together and kills the athletes?....What other culture takes its competing political group and throws them off of buildings, kills their children at school, etc....

and this is the culture that you believe can handle democracy......where is your evidence (there is plenty to show that they are not prepared for a democracy)

and what other culture has been occupied for 40 years and NOT developed suicide bombers as a part of their culture? ......they exist.


____

be precise please:
Intifada I was relativly non violent (stones, Molotov cocktails etc)......the IDF soliders for the most part did not walk around with loaded weapons, were not fearful for their lives, nor were the Palestinians...... and main weapons were tear gas batons and rocks..... You seem not to like the idea that the Palestinians accomplished something on their own, without any outside help......it was the first steps.....

and you may not like it, but olso came about precisly because the concept of Palestinians state was accepted, by the majority, thats how democracies work. (i apologize for the many israelis that dont reach your standards they must be awful people,.....i guess your pretty upset with the Palestinians and their lack of acceptance of israel-or is this a case of double standards?)


ninterrupted food-supply? – Don’t you read the news?....Netanyahu only now agreed not to obstruct food supplies!...As for building-supplies, they are restricted like never before.

the aid and food are entering gaza, the discussion is about the restrictions about what can and cant enter. As far as building supplies....i'm all for keeping them out until gilad is returned. I think his life is worth more than new buildings.

[kayecy]

161. All Israel ever does is destroy infrastructure in a display of futile military power......

Pelsar:

..hamas was elected as the majority...and since their rule they have eliminated what was left of any hint of democracy in gaza.....its doubtful that there will be elections...do yo believe the elections were in fact a good idea?

Ah...’fortune-teller’ stuff again....Why don’t you stick to hypotheses?.....I’ll re-phrase your question...”If Hamas eliminated what was left of democracy in Gaza, do you think the elections were in fact a good idea?
Answer:....Then I would of course think elections were not a good idea.

..do you believe it was right to support the revolution “Iran 1979?”

Answer: I do not think it right to support either the 1950 CIA-engineered revolution or the 1979 Khomeini revolution.

...the answer As far as i know: none to the occupation.....

Good...You agree no-one but Israel has occupied a people for 40 years or anything like it since WW2...Can I take it that applying a single standard, you will agree that Israel is somewhat deficient in western values?

do you actually believe that the Palestinians are starving?...

My question was what other western state has restricted food-aid to a people having just suffered an invasion....Israel has done exactly that, and so I take it that you will agree that this is yet another example of how, Israel has failed to live up to the norms of western civilisation?

....your turn what other people have developed a culture where targeting women and children is the goal by suicide bomber and then celebrating the killer by putting posters of him or her all over the city or naming a sporting event after him? What other culture celebrates a person who takes a little girl and bashes her head in with the but of his rifle? what other culture do you know of celebrates those who go to intl sporting that is to celebrate people living and competing together and kills the athletes?....What other culture takes its competing political group and throws them off of buildings, kills their children at school, etc....

None that I know of

....the aid and food are entering gaza, the discussion is about the restrictions about what can and cant enter

According to John Kerry, one of the classes of food that was restricted was Pizzas...Are the IDF afraid they will be converted into kassams?...It seems to me more likely that the IDF want to collectively punish the people of Gaza because they can’t get at Hamas.

As far as building supplies....i'm all for keeping them out until gilad is returned.

More collective punishment by the IDF?...What do you suggest the impoverished Palestinian sitting on top of his bombed house does about Gilad?...Israel has been lashing out at militants and innocent Palestinians since 1948 and failed miserably to achieve its long-term goal...Replace the stick by a few carrots and the IDF may achieve something....(Remember the Marshall plan?)....All Israel ever does is destroy infrastructure in a display of futile military power.

[pelsar]

163. some corrections... (again)

what would happen to your opinion if you had to adjust them to the harsh reality?

Since 1975 Morocco has been an occupying power in Western Sahara
_________________________

but its clear you really have no idea what is going on in gaza these days or in the PA. I realize you've never been, but the question is it that you dont know? (ignorance?) or prefer not to know?

some info:
Hama has instituted shari law in gaza....this not fortune telling, this is the situation today within gaza. Did you not know this?
(http://www.newsmax.com/international/Hamas_bombs_Gaza_Israel/2009/01/09/169756.html)

_____
....your turn what other people have developed a culture where targeting women and children is the goal by suicide bomber and then celebrating the killer by putting posters of him or her all over the city or naming a sporting event after him? What other culture celebrates a person who takes a little girl and bashes her head in with the but of his rifle? what other culture do you know of celebrates those who go to intl sporting that is to celebrate people living and competing together and kills the athletes?....What other culture takes its competing political group and throws them off of buildings, kills their children at school, etc...

answer: None that I know of.

again i realize that you've never been to gaza to seen the posters on the walls, the celebrations etc....do you not know about kutner and how he is a hero? about how hamas took over and now controls gaza?...do you need examples....or do you somehow believe that these aspects in fact dont exist or are aberrations?...which is it?


..Israel has done exactly that, and so I take it that you will agree that this is yet another example of how, Israel has failed to live up to the norms of western civilization?

quite the opposite:

if one looks at "western norms" it includes completely destroying countries, wiping out whole cities, sending missiles into hotels, wedding ceremonie, sinking outdated battleships, etc.....do you really want to compare the damage israel has done vs that of western countries?.....and wonder if israel has "lived up to it?".....what western civilization are you talking about?
___________
and again this is a matter of whether your opinion is based on what you want to believe vs reality..which is it....it seems to me you simply dont know, because if you did, you wouldnt be writing this:
Replace the stick by a few carrots and the IDF may achieve something....(Remember the Marshall plan?)....All Israel ever does is destroy infrastructure in a display of futile military power.

Israel built a complete industrial area just north of gaz in a place called erez (one of several-that you obviously dont know of). The concept was that Palestenians could come to work at israeli wages etc, and return home.The employeers were private israeli businessman. This place employeed over 4000 Palestenians and was considered "plum jobs."

and then the Palestinians started attacking it, mortars, kassams, planting bombs in cars that went into repairs, suicide bombers entering in with the workers and killing people.... eventually the israeli businessman had to close up and leave, its now closed.
___

so what exactly did israel do wrong there? isnt that the carrot you wrote about? and why were they attacking it....

[kayecy]

168. Can I suggest you check your facts before asking me to adjust my opinions to "harsh reality"? .....

....what would happen to your opinion if you had to adjust them to the harsh reality?

You are losing me...."harsh reality" being what?....Morocco as a western democracy?...Netanyahu letting Palestinians eat Pizzas?...Palestinians working for Israeli wages?.

Since 1975 Morocco has been an occupying power in Western Sahara

And you think Morocco is a western democracy?....Look at the democracy rating given to Morocco by World Audit.org:
Uruguay ......21 out of 150
Israel..........31
Morocco .....95
Egypt .........98

Come on Pelsar, you must be able to do better than that to support your claim...Let’s try again....Which western democracy has occupied a people for anywhere near 40 years?

...quite the opposite:....if one looks at "western norms" it includes completely destroying countries, wiping out whole cities, sending missiles into hotels, wedding ceremonie, sinking outdated battleships, etc.

But your list does not include deliberately withholding food-aid and re-construction....The US has spent billions on trying to re-build Iraq...What percentage of Israel’s budget has gone on reconstruction in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank?...Has Israel re-constructed anything at all?...The airports they destroyed, the power plants, the water pipes the bridges the ordinary dwelling houses?....The US attacked Iraq (wrongly in my opinion) to save the world, including Israel from the supposed threat of WMD...I didn’t hear many Israeli residents objecting to the US ensuring their safety...You of course did, I take it?

Israel built a complete industrial area just north of gaz in a place called erez (one of several-that you obviously dont know of)

Very nice for Israeli businessmen and a life-line for some Palestinian workers...Unfortunately Israel did nothing inside Gaza - they made no attempt to rebuild Gaza’s airport or the other infrastructure they had destroyed.

The concept was that Palestinians could come to work at israeli wages etc, and return home

Israeli wages?...In 2004 when Olmert closed erez, the average Palestinian wage working at erez was 90NIS...In Israel the legal minimum wage was 143NIS....37% less!


Can I suggest you check your facts before asking me to adjust my opinions to "harsh reality"?

[pelsar]

169. you were wrong: 100% wrong

you stated clearly that israel builds nothing

Replace the stick by a few carrots and the IDF may achieve something....(Remember the Marshall plan?)....All Israel ever does is destroy infrastructure in a display of futile military power.

israel has built in the westbank several industrial parks where the Palestinians live, built the hospital in gaza city, built some water treatment centers in gaza when it occupied it, etc Shall i list the work since 67? which included schools, electrical systems, roads in the westbank (do you really think that has been no change in the infrastructure since 67?---i guess you do)

And you didnt answer my question about their culture and the suicide bombers....is it an aberration? do you believe that they even have suicide bombers and if so why do they have posters up on the walls with their pict (holding weapons)? or have a sporting event named after one if its not part of the culture then what is it?

and why did the Palestinians attack Erez (you were right about the wages, i just remember a court case about them, that they were suppose to raise them)

[kayecy]

170. Have you any facts to support your belief that I was "Wrong..100% wrong?"......

You were wrong: 100% wrong…you stated clearly that Israel builds nothing (in the O/T)
israel has built in the westbank several industrial parks where the Palestinians live, built the hospital in gaza city, built some water treatment centers in gaza when it occupied it, etc

You claim I was wrong, a 100% wrong!...What evidence have you for that claim?...I have only been able to find the following:

"Mr. Feiler in his presentation in particular concentrated on the Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian economic dynamics. Since the signing of the Oslo Accords, there had been less than 20 million dollars of joint venture capital in the Palestinian territory compared to more than 100 million dollars in joint venture investments in Jordan."


World Bank Report on the O.T. infrastructure needs 1993:
"1.4 The basic reason for the poor state of the infrastructure sectors and the inadequacy of the services provided is related to the governance of the OT……
Third, there is some evidence that not all of the tax revenues collected by the Israeli authorities from residents of the OT have been made available to the Civil Administration (CA) for inter alia, investment and municipal.....
Fourth, municipalities have been forced to siphon funds from the utilities to maintain municipal services. Consequently, utilities have had to finance almost all their investment from their remaining internal resources."

Shall i list the work since 67? which included schools, electrical systems, roads in the westbank

But were such investments in the Palestinian areas?...According to the Ha’aretz:

"Between 1962 and 2003, the Israel government spent $10 billion on access roads, schools, health-centres and industrial areas – in the settlement areas"

And you didn't answer my question about their culture and the suicide bombers

Yes I did – see Message 161…You know I try to answer all of your questions!

....your turn what other people have developed a culture where targeting women and children is the goal by suicide bomber ………kills their children at school, etc....

My answer was: “None that I know of.”

.... and why did the Palestinians attack Erez (you were right about the wages, i just remember a court case about them, that they were suppose to raise them)

Answer: I don’t know

[pelsar]

171. wow...is all i have to say...

two examples: look up shifa hospital in gaza....

Shifa Hospital complex in Gaza City, which was refurbished during Israel's occupation of the Gaza Strip.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054569.html
---
or
In total, seven Universities have been commissioned in the West Bank since 1967. (pre 67 there was none)

_________________________
obviously you motivation is in finding just how bad/evil israel is....thats easy, democracies are generally open to criticism, about policies, whether they did enough, or in the wrong areas etc.thats the nature of them, your accusation was simply wrong as per two simple examples above and my previous ones. Now your comment, like in the past ones when you were shown to be wrong, is something to the effect."thats all"....and some snide remark that its not good enough....but you were wrong


but these two comments of yours actually explains everything:
if you dont know why the Palestenians were attacking erez while they had jobs there, it shows a complete lack of knowledge of the culture, the motivations and the problems involved....

you second answer was funny, claiming that the suicide bombers etc were not part of their culture (whether its temporary or not was not the question.)
____

What we have here is what i call: colonial culturalism

since you have shown that you really dont understand the motivations or the Palestinian culture......how can you possibly suggest solutions?...are your solutions 100% based on your western ideal an values...something like western colonialism that states you know the answer and the local culture is irrelevant (you obviously havent even bothered to learn about it....)

[kayecy]

172. I have never made such a claim..........

Shifa Hospital complex in Gaza City, which was refurbished during Israel's occupation of the Gaza Strip

You are correct

In total, seven Universities have been commissioned in the West Bank since 1967.

I have no evidence that these universities were not financed by Israel.

From the above references, my statement that Israel builds nothing was obviously wrong...I should have done more research first...I have learnt something.

...you second answer was funny, claiming that the suicide bombers etc were not part of their culture...

I have never made such a claim...You are, in this allegation, 100% WRONG....Can’t you read what I said in my Message 161?...I will repeat it for you:

Your Question: “...what other people have developed a culture where targeting women and children is the goal by suicide bomber...”

My Answer: “None that I know of.”

Please explain how that can possibly be construed as “..claiming that suicide bombers etc were not part of their culture.”....
.
.

[shira]

174. Israel paid to end the refugee problem but Palestinian leadership and UNRWA wanted no part of it

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=52&x_article=960

but "all Israel does is destroy...".

:eyes:

so, what do you think now of Palestinian leadership and the UN based on those events? warm and fuzzy?

still think "all Israel does is destroy.."?

[shira]

175. oh yeah, as for Palestinians wanting or not wanting Jews in the land see this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x275245#275353

Kayecy,
Look at the bold part at the bottom of the post....think of the short time period between the Faisal-Weizmann agreement and the Mufti's ascendency to power (when he was immediately relentless destroying any Arab opposition to his plans against Jews). Whatever cooperation was there initially between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine at the time was destroyed by the Mufti and his thuggish goon followers. So do you think Faisal or the Mufti better represented the Palestinian people in those days?

[pelsar]

176. i misunderstood....

Your Question: “...what other people have developed a culture where targeting women and children is the goal by suicide bomber...”

My Answer: “None that I know of.”

i read it as "i dont know of any"....my mistake

the real answer is the tamil tigers...it was in fact they that started the concept and integrated it within their culture, the Palestinians picked up on it. One might notice that cultures however are constantly in flux and different aspects of a culture over time can be "removed.". The Palestinians past use whereas was quite prevalent, until the wall and checkpoints came up, and is no longer a successful tactic.

here you have a interesting moral dilemma......was it mere coincidence that when the wall went up, and the checkposts went up that they stopped "blowing up" in israeli restaurants and busses?...... as some have claimed or are they not successful in killing israselis because of the wall and checkpoints?

[kayecy]

178. You seem to have difficulty in believing that I no more approve of suicide bombing than you do......

...here you have a interesting moral dilemma......was it mere coincidence that when the wall went up, and the checkposts went up that they stopped "blowing up" in israeli restaurants and busses?...... as some have claimed or are they not successful in killing israselis because of the wall and checkpoints?

Not a moral dilemma at all....It seems very likely that they were not successful in killing Israelis because of the wall and checkpoints.


You seem to have difficulty in believing that I no more approve of suicide bombing than you do...The difference between us is that you think Palestinians do it for fun whereas I think that many of them do it because they hate Israelis...

Why do they hate Israelis?....They hate losing land to Israeli settlements...They hate being treated as inferior to Israeli settlers....They hate the roadblocks and enforced diversions... They hate the raids by Israeli troops...They hate their economy and infrastructure being destroyed by Israel.
.
.

[pelsar]

182. i think you disapprove of the system used to stop them....

that is usually the problem I've noticed...the means that israel uses to stop israelis from being killed seems to draw much protest in many areas. I dont mind the criticism, but i notice an inability of those that criticizes to come up with working alternative that is not based on religion (a belief that cannot be proved), or ignore past attempts which have failed.

You've already mentioned you dont know why they were attacking erez, the place where their fellow Palestenians had peaceful jobs....

and again with this statement you show that you simply dont know whats going on:
...They hate their economy and infrastructure being destroyed by Israel

they're economy grew and expanded under the occupation (it shrunk since intifada II).....nor do they hate israelis, a small segment does to be sure, nor is the occupation a "walk in the park"...but thats not relevant to your lack of knowledge.

some of them actually hate hamas and the PA more than they do israelis....did you even know that?

[kayecy]

187. 84% of Palestinians supported the killing of Israelis..........

.....nor do they hate israelis, a small segment does to be sure, nor is the occupation a "walk in the park"...but thats not relevant to your lack of knowledge.

You talk of “A small segment”……How do you explain the following poll result?

New York Times March 19, 2008:
"According to the poll, of 1,270 Palestinians in face-to-face interviews, 84 percent supported the March 6 attack on the Mercaz Harav yeshiva"

I think that supports my view that many Palestinians hate Israelis…Have you anything to support your claim of “a small segment”?

[pelsar]

198. try other polls as well......

polls of the I/P conflict are incredibly flexible.....one poll can show how they can all live with each other another can show they want to kill each other.....

if 84% of the Palestenians hated israelis, i would think that they would have a hard time working together as they do day to day. Does your poll btw include the arabs of Jerusalem who are also israelis?..do they hate themselves?


another poll:

From this poll it is not clear how the Palestinian people think to resolve the conflict with Israel:
- 70% support a peace settlement with Israel
- principally 75% of Palestinians do not think that Israel has the right to exist
- 70% support a one-state solution
- 51% believe that Hamas should change its position towards the elimination of Israel
- 63% of Palestinians believe that Hamas should use all its efforts to reach a peace agreement



http://www.israel-palestina.info/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=435

[shira]

129. are you kidding? what if just 2-3 million (of 6 million) jews wanted to get the frak out of Europe

what choices did they have? Where in the world could 2-3 million Jews, out of 6 million about to be killed, go? No way the UK or USA takes them all in. Forget which other countries "should" have taken them in....they didn't, they all failed....so should 2-3 million Jews have just stayed in Europe and died (is that the moral choice) or go to Israel which was already designated over 20 years earlier as the Jewish homeland? Was there any other choice? In fact, which is the more "moral" choice...die in Europe or flood Israel with millions more immigrants who wished to live?

[Ken Burch]

191. The thing is, the Zionists weren't particularly interested in taking them in either.

''Were I to know that all German Jewish children could be rescued by transferring them to England and only half by transfer to Palestine, I would opt for the latter, because our concern is not only the personal interest of these children, but the historic interest of the Jewish people.''

-David Ben-Gurion

And it also bears remembering that many Israelis cruelly abused Holocaust survivors and the memory of Holocaust victims by falsely accusing them of accepting their fates without a fight. There is nothing more loathesome than accusing the victims of a genocide of having been cowards. And Israel SHOULD have been the one place where those people had the right to expect nothing but support and compassion.

And I condemn the U.S. and the other English-speaking countries for barring the door to Jewish refugees in the Thirties and Forties. However, the "pro-Israel" types have basically given these countries a pass on this in exchange for things like missiles, which is a disgraceful trade-off.

Of course those people shouldn't have stayed in Europe. But they weren't even made welcome in Palestine, so what the hell are you talking about here? The way to respond to the shameful parts of history is to create a world without bigotry and injustice, not to demand that everyone give unquestioning support to a nationalist movement that ended up harming a people who weren't responsible for what Hitler did. Especially since giving that kind of support has actually ended up endangering the residents of the country that nationalist movement created.

[shira]

192. another asinine comment

Even assuming Ben Gurion meant every word and would have pushed for that action, the Jews of Palestine during the Holocaust years had NO POWER to do anything, and even if they DID, there's no reason to believe Ben Gurion wouldn't have been outvoted by other more sympathetic Jews (he wasn't supreme leader). In fact, to prove my point, someone brought up Lehi's working with the Nazis during the WW2 years. You should look up what that actually entailed (transfering Jews to Palestine / Germany recognizing Israel). So once again, there is no merit to your accusation.

[pelsar]

197. the thing is...you dont know what your writing about.....

The thing is, the Zionists weren't particularly interested in taking them in either.

i realize that your one of those "true believers" like any religious person facts and history aren't as important as the belief itself. So that if i were to list the Jewish Palestenian that went to europe to help jews get out pre, during and post WWII you would some how find it irrelevant. If one were to list just where those 100,000 concentration camp survivors went to in israel, how they were taken in by kibbutzim, moshavim and other places to repair their lives, in a country that itself had almost nothing, you would somehow have to make a comment that it "really didnt happen".....

yet those 100,000 + people did arrive in israel, with nothing, and contributed to developing a country....

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/978364.html

this really isnt for you.....its for those who are interested in learning about the holocaust survivors in israel

[cali]

167. huh? Can a small child or baby be a Zionist?

[Malikshah]

58. Read some talkbacks here in South Florida...TOPIX is an outlet for every

homophobe, racist, anti-semite, Islamophobic nutjob.

This paper exceptionalizes the anti-semitism, as always.

[Behind the Aegis]

70. Not the "decent ones"

Well, that accounts for burch and green, and they have posted it all over this thread.

[bemildred]

72. So would you say "The Jews are innocent"?

Would you say that AIPAC has no say in US policy? Has the US been a good friend to Israel through thick and thin? At some cost to it's own selfish interests? Or not?

Kissinger is legendary in his own mind, I don't know about anywhere else.

[LeftishBrit]

74. As innocent or otherwise as any other significant group of human beings

'Would you say that AIPAC has no say in US policy?'

I am sure it has some. Would you say that the various Christian Right groups had no say in US policy? Or oil-producing Arab countries? Or the various domestic lobbies from the NRA to the insurance companies? (to a non-American the power of lobbies in general in American politics is pretty shocking)

'Has the US been a good friend to Israel through thick and thin? At some cost to it's own selfish interests? Or not?'

A good friend yes; but not a totally altruistic one. The two countries have a strong symbiotic relationship, which from the point of view of a left-winger without much enthusiasm for the military-industrial complex has had mixed good and bad effects on both countries; but obviously does suit many of the dominant interests in both countries. Similar in many ways to the America/UK relationship.

[bemildred]

75. A direct hit, I see.

I'm not into saying the Jews run things, but they are not residents of Darfur either. I think "the Jews", or Israelis, or "Jewish Israelis", are at least as guilty as "the Palestinians", or "the Arabs", or "Muslims"; and a bit more candor about that fact would go a long way to help resolve the situation.

[LeftishBrit]

77. I certainly don't think that either the Jews/ Arabs/ Israelis/ Palestinians/ etc

are totally guilty, or totally innocent victims.

I do blame both sides and their governments quite a lot - for their own conflict and failure to take sensible steps to resolve it, and their follies as voters (both sides). I don't, however, blame either side for the actions of *other* countries in the world; and I think that is what the original article is referring to.
.

[bemildred]

79. So yes, we are all guilty, and all responsible, equally.

But it's true, I have a special place in my heart for governments and politicians.

[shira]

209. 32% of Dems blame Jews for economic downturn

State of the Nation
Anti-Semitism and the economic crisis

http://bostonreview.net/BR34.3/malhotra_margalit.php

Interestingly, Democrats were especially prone to blaming Jews: while 32 percent of Democrats accorded at least moderate blame, only 18.4 percent of Republicans did so (a statistically significant difference). This difference is somewhat surprising given the presumed higher degree of racial tolerance among liberals and the fact that Jews are a central part of the Democratic Party’s electoral coalition. Are Democrats simply more likely to “blame everything” thus casting doubt on whether the anti-Jewish attitudes are real? Not at all. We also asked how much “individuals who took out loans and mortgages they could not afford” were to blame on the same five-point scale. In this case, Democrats were less likely than Republicans to assign moderate or greater blame.

:puke:

WTF is going on when Republicans are less likely to exhibit anti-semitic attitudes than Democrats?

[Lakrosse]

210. I don't mean to racial stereotype

but I do think in our Democratic ethnic diversity, there are definitely interracial tensions. Some groups, like blacks and Jews have historically experienced enmity. Hell, listen to preachers like Jeremiah Wright, how he blamed "them Jews" and then said "ooops I meant Zionists." I do not feel that most blacks are anti-Semites, but we'd be lying to ourselves if we didn't admit a good deal don't love the Jews, as it is historical. Especially when in some areas, like Harlem, many landlords are Jews in these economic times. Sharpton and Jackson aren't much better. I do also think that this influenced hate against Israel. But I by no means believe most or all anti-Israel posters to be black. But the growing anti-I sentiment in the left, is a product of knee-jerk reaction to Bush hate, ie because Bush supported Israel, we must not. Or the desire of some on the left to think "why do they hate us" and when they think the answer is Israel, they blame it, instead of Radical Islam, and think we should appease it. Shame for them, most Democrats don't mind the Jews, and actually, most Dems support Israel. 55% in a Rasmussen poll agrees that Israel is an ally and no mainstream Dem politician opposes Israel. Another problem is that at many anti-Iraq war demonstrations, the "Free Palestine" crowd shows up.