Moonbox

It's not a see no evil approach. It's a "Don't blame the Israelis for being born in Israel" approach. It's also a "don't be be an idiot and don't be naive" approach to the peace process. You can't negotiate peace with someone who has no desire for peace. That would be Iran and the outsiders participating in and encouraging/financing the violence in Israel. You can't negotiate with them because they're simply not interested and have made it clear they are not interested. Israel and Palestine are ready and willing to talk/negotiate. There are unfortunately outsiders stirring the pot who benefit from instability in the area. It's idiotic to propose that the Israelis apologize for being there because all that does is make their position officially illegitimate. Officially acknowledging this is in fact the same as agreeing with Iran and Co. that Israel does not have the 'right' to exist, which would thus encourage more violence against them. It's not gang mentality. It's not turning a blind eye. It's realistically looking at the current situation and understanding how bad it really is. I'm not blind to the grievances of the Palestinian people there. I sympathize with them. I understand the history of the region VERY well. The problem is that the Jewish nation was transplanted there by British overlords over 60 years ago and there's NOTHING you or I can do about that now. A lot of the violence in Palestine and Israel right now is less about grievances of Palestinians and more about Iran and militant Islamics and their efforts to destabilize the region. The Palestinians are helpless, Israel has no idea how to keep its people safe and consequently you have hurt feelings and dead people on both sides. The justification for the attacks on Israel are akin to Christian Europe's Crusades. THEY'RE IN OUR HOLY LAND. GOD WILLS IT. THEY MUST DIE! For Iran and its friends, it's about building influence, building power and removing hostile western influence in the area. It's not about the downtrodden Palestinians, although they are easy pawns given their plight.

Mainly German? Try about 5000 years of aggression against Jews from the Egyptians, to the Romans, to feudal Europe ending only when they were given a place to call home....their traditional native home.

There's pretty much no possible way to argue against this.

What sort of moral restitution is Israel supposed to offer? I can just see it now, "Hey ummm...sorry that after thousands of years we are returning to our natural native homeland that was taken away from us in the first place. Umm...we feel really bad for being here." ?????? If that's the case then Turkey should be apologizing to the Greeks for Byzantium and offering 'moral restitution', as well as Spain, France, England and Portugal to all of North and South America. Let's not stop there though. Let's go over every single foreign conquest of the last 1000 years and demand apologies from the descendants of people who had nothing to do with the original annexation. I mean, seriously. It's pretty apparent these days that the world of 60 years ago was completely different than the world of today. Today the massed immigration of an entire nation of people displacing a native population would anger and inflame the whole world. Back then it was business as usual. We live in a more civilized world now but we can't help what our ancestors did nor should we be expected to feel guilty and apologize for being born and growing up on a peace of land. Israel is there and it's not leaving. To put it bluntly, the angry Arab populations are going to have to get over it. Your whole idea of a cessation of all aggression by both sides is incredibly naive and the world at large acknowledges it as such. For peace to be possible there has to be a legitimate desire for peace. Israel wants peace. Palestinians I'm sure want peace (mostly). Iran and militant organizations in the area have no desire for peace, have nothing to GAIN from peace and actually prosper at Israel's expense. Israel and Palestine can bargain and make concessions to each other all they want but until the area at large acknowledges at LEAST Israel's right to exist then Israel has no hope for peace. With no hope for peace on one side and no desire for it from the other side, it's nothing short of remarkable how restrained Israel's aggression has been. Israel has made VERY meaningful concessions in the past and it did nothing to appease its enemies. The Gaza strip withdrawl did nothing.

The question is how far back do you go in claiming restitution? What do give in terms of restitution? Would Israel's enemies even accept reasonable restitution (they wouldn't)? If there is ANY hope of peace, the ball is entirely in Iran and the Arab leaders' court. They have to recognize Israel and its right to exist, OFFICIALLY. If they don't do that, Israel has no reason to believe there is any intention for peace and therefore they are going to continue to act like there is no hope for peace. I don't mean Palestine. If Palestinians were the only people committing violence, then Israel could bargain with thenm in good faith because they have an ACTUAL vested interest in peace. The people of Palestine LIVE there and as such would conceivably not want to worry about getting killed. These are not even the real offenders though. Israel is contending with shadows financed by foreign governments who don't want to negotiate and only want to see Israel gone. They have no interest in peace because they have nothing to gain by it. They do, on the other hand, have a vested interest in destabilizing Israel. When I'm talking about Israel's enemies, let's start with the big ones like the leaders of Iran who finance anti-Israeli militias for billions and publicly and internationally call for Israel's downfall. I realize you can't get EVERYONE to give up violence but the above would be a good start The west does criticize Israeli settlement encroachment. They do get pissy when Israel starts launching campaigns into Lebanon and Gaza etc. The main difference here is that Israel's aggression is generally not deliberate acts of violence against innocent civilians and as such it's a lot more reasonable to sympathize and relate to their position. I would agree with that but BOTH sides have to come to the table and agree on that. Hamas is mostly foreign-funded and foreign-supported and one of its main objectives in its charter is the elimination of the state of Israel. If the major parties would agree to actually speak to one another, agree to recognize each other, and agree to end violence and stop any further aggressions, we might have something to work with. As I said before, there are a few things that people aren't willing to budge on, namely the acceptance of Israel's right to exist.

I would be on the other side of the Falls every single weekend to 'vacation' and buy my stuff there if this were the case. The smuggling that would go on would bog down our borders to the point that trade would grind to a halt. Neat idea, no way to implement it.

I can say it honestly because I'm using my brain and following what Israel's enemies are saying and the history of the region, which I am VERY well-versed in. At some point they are going to have to get over the fact that 60 years ago, their long time conquerors and overlords decided that a Jewish homeland was to be created there. This is not something that could be done today, but 60 years ago the world was completely different. Given the fact that the Israeli Jews are NOT going to leave and that it's a political and practical impossibility, any further dialogue and thinking must proceed from there. Israel's attackers are making their intentions and grievances quite clear. They're not saying, "We will drive the zionists off of illegal settlements." They are saying, "Death to Israel proper." If there was a clear and honest suggestion from Israel's enemies that they WOULD acknowledge the country's right to exist and they WOULD stop attacking if Israel backed out of their settlements then you might have an argument. Unfortunately for your argument Iran and a lot of the clerics and rabid dogs in the region absolutely refuse to do this and thus Israel remains fearful and aggressive/defensive. How naive and do you have to be to believe that Israel should make concessions on its borders to puppet organizations when the puppetmasters continue to vow violence death and destruction upon them simply for existing? Again, nope. I'm not justifying anything. Sometimes things like this are just the way they are. I can't really justify the transplantion of an entire nation but that was 60 years ago and not much can be done about it now. We've already both said we don't want to go deep into history with this but there's FAR FAR more than 60 years worth of history to go over with this. Israel is there. It has defined borders recognized by the world community at large. It's not going anywhere. If there's to be ANY hope of peace then the REAL leaders (religious, political and academic) of the Middle-Eastern Arabic community must agree to sit down and talk with Israel. They're not doing that. They're doing the opposite. Now THERE's a good an noble idea. I've already gone over the SLIGHT problem with that idea however. Remember the one about Iran and the clerics etc refusing to even acknowledge the Israeli state? They're the only ones that can change the direction of the conflict from the Arab side. They don't seem too inclined to do so however. The most interesting thing about this is that these guys don't even have a vested interest in a peace process. It's in their interest to foment violence. It's a total clusterfuck.

Nope, not at all. The settlement encroachment is not the cause of violence against Israel. That is not why militants blow themselves up in packed buses and shoot rockets into Tel Aviv. That's something that might upset them, but they kill and threaten Israel simply because Israel exists. Your point would make sense if Islamic militants in the area agreed, "If Israel stopped encroaching we'd stop attacking altogether." Unfortunately, a long term agreement like this has never been offered and unless the big boys (prominent radical clerics/Iran etc) stopped funding the attacks and conceded that Israel should be allowed to EXIST, condemning Israel for not rolling over like a meek dog is pure hubris. The militants are asking for concessions but they and their supporters are offering nothing solid in return because the people ultimately responsible for the violence aren't even interested in the negotiations. What you're proposing is a strategy of appeasement that may make a few people less rabid and angry but nothing else.

Exactly.

Myata ask yourself this: If Israel were to stop its expansion and withdraw all illegal settlements and prevent any further settlements from being built, would violence against Israel stop? This is the ONLY question that matters because unless the answer is yes Israel has ZERO reason to stop it and International Law shows just how impotent it really is in this area.

The thread evolved for 60 pages. Here we are now. Stop posting unless you have something to add to the discussion because all you're doing now is nattering one-liners at us. And why did you quote that whole block of text just to say that?

Benny if you have nothing intelligent to say here then just abandon the thread please. Your natterings and one-liners aren't at all contributing to the discussion. Back to Myata: You keep saying that we need to play fair and negotiate fairly and mediate fairly. The bottom line is that Israel has NOBODY to negotiate WITH. There's no central or representative body on the Arab side that is going be able to negotiate on behalf of all of Israel's attackers. We're not dealing with state vs state politics, as I've said before. Israel is dealing with shadowy foreign-supported militant groups, composed a lot of the time with a good number of foreigners, and the goal of these groups is the destruction of Israel. If Israel negotiates a ceasfire and makes concessions to Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah or whoever, all they'll be doing is making concessions, making themselves weaker and paving the way for the NEXT militant group/leader. It's pretty much IMPOSSIBLE to even TRY to negotiate peace when the major grievance of the other side is the right of Israel to even exist and the position is supported and financed by one of the area's most powerful nations (hello Iran). As far as Israel is concerned they don't even have the OPTION of peace. You can naively say we should be "seriously trying" but there remains one very CRITICAL point that prevents the entire process. Until all of Israel's neighbours and the fundamentalist/militant Islamic culture actually acknowledges the state of Israel and stops vowing its destruction, it's incredibly foolish, naive and hypocritical to be blaming them for the violence there. A solid end to violence has NEVER been offered by the Arab nation and I don't see it happening. Give it a few generations, maybe that will be long enough for them to figure out Israel isn't going anywhere. Won't happen in my lifetime or yours.

It's a moot point, because one side has made it very clear they're not interested in the peace process altogether. The Israelis also don't have anyone solid to negotiate WITH. There's no central authority for the anti-Israeli violence. The best and closest thing you might have would be Iran. As for who I think we should be supporting, I feel it's completely justfiable to be more sympathetic to the Israeli side of things. One side is (largely) content to live inside its borders in peace regardless of the fact that they have the capability to annex and subjugate large swathes of territory around them and on the other side, you have brainwashed fundamentalists swearing rabidly to destroy Israel and murder its people. Tiny unauthorized settlements do not in ANY way compare with widespread murder and attacks when it comes to aggression. It doesn't even come close. What would people say if the Israelis were swearing to utterly destroy Syria and Iran? Please, let's get into this. Clarify which recent events you're talking about and we'll go from there. The bottom line is the Israelis live in fear, they're endlessly either under attack or under threat of attack and the ultimate goals and concessions demanded by the other side (the elimination of Israel) are not something the Israelis can negotiate with. Eventually, you have to meet aggression with aggression. One side is QUITE CLEARLY less receptive to a cesssation of hostilities than the other.

Benny quit with the silly rhetoric and speak plainly. I don't know what you're talking about.

It's pretty silly to expect Israel to say, "We'll stop building our settlements if you stop rocketing and bombing our people." It's not like the Israelis are ants. The settlements don't get built up in a week or two. The attacks on Israel happen constantly. Even while the Israelis are promising to dismantle the settlements over the next little while you have the Fatah calling for violence agaisnt Israel. What I'm trying to say is that there is that the whole negotiation process is a joke. Nobody can mediate this mess, credibly or none-credibly because there's no legitimate second party to negotiate with. Israel can negotiate all it wants with Hamas and Hezbollah or Fatah but they're not a legitimate authority and any treaty the Israelis sign won't be recognized by the next nut job faction to emerge. Who knows what they'd be called. The main problem here is the fundamentalist culture as a whole. Until, as I said, they evolve beyond their small-minded medieval politics NOTHING will change here. How do you negotiate with an entire culture that wants you dead and that's spread out over the entire Middle East and more?

Who are the Israelis supposed to negotiate with in good faith? Why make any sort of concessions to people vehemently opposed your right to exist in your now native land and vowing to wipe you off the planet? The whole peace process is a freaking joke until the area acknowledges that basic right to exist. I certainly can't argue that. If bombs and rockets were going off around your home, however, I wonder how you'd feel about the situation. Would you meekly hide in your homes if the people across the border were vowing your destruction and denying your right to exist? What would you do Myata? We're not dealing with defined nation vs nation politics here. We're dealing with Nation A vs shadowy extremist organizations funded by angry Nation B vowing to destroy Nation A. You can negotiate all you want with whoever the balogna figurehead of the day is, but the underlying problem is the entire freaking region is violently hostile to Israel and unless their rabid clerics progress beyond archaic 1400-1500 AD thinking Israel has no reason whatsoever to make any concessions to anyone. The fact that their borders have barely moved in 50 years is a testament to their restraint. Israel has always been willing to talk. If the hostile Arabs in the area would make the TINY concession of acknowledging the Israeli State and to stop vowing its destruction, then the peace talks can FINALLY begin. Until that happens the whole process is idiotic.

You're reinforcing my point. Included in the article is: That pledge falls short of recognizing Israel, a necessary step for Hamas to be included in peace talks, but many Middle East diplomats said it could mark an important step toward that goal. So basically this nut is saying, "Ya we're totally cool with a Palestinian state and we'll TALK peace but we're still not acknowledging Israel's right to exist." Like I've said before, that's the crux of the whole argument. Peace negotiations with hamas and groups like it are generally worth less than the words uttered. They have NOTHING to lose or give up in the peace talks because they're being financed by foreign countries. They're not the ones who have to give up concessions and if they later break the peace agreements (which they usually do) they'll come up with some bull crap reason for it. Of course they'll talk peace and arrange for Israel to make concessions. That's one small step in their ultimate objective: Eliminate Israel. If a few words will accomplish a smaller Israel then a few words can be spoken. The word of a foreign funded terrorist group means nothing. The problem is the vehement denial of Arab states that Israel has the right to even exist and until they acknowledge that there's no point in Israel making concessions. It just makes them more vulnerable and weaker to attacks that will inevitably happen. It doesn't ever really occur to anyone here that Israel by itself could curb stomp the whole region and make Israel 10x bigger all by itself with nobody able to resist them. It doesn't occur to people that Israel does NOT respond with the heavy hand it carries.

Benny and Myata maybe you two could respond to this very simple point before you say anything else. This is what EVERYTHING boils down to. If you can't acknowledge this then maybe you should shut up because it's idiotic not to. Israel HAS made concessions and has engaged in talks. Unfortunately they're dealing with a organizations that operates outside the boundaries of nations/laws etc and who have ZERO vested interest in a peace process. Perhaps the gargantuan mental effort of grasping this simple fact is beyond you, but it's really something you should at least try to understand.

That made me laugh!

but that works both ways. Sometimes an actual pilot is more concerned with saving his own skin than saving yours. I completely understand what you're saying, but my point is that a UAV/UCAV can push the performance envelope beyond that of a manned fighter and they are MORE likely I think to risk the aircraft to save lives or accomplish an objective. Human safety standards are a detriment when it comes to performance dynamics. The basic problem here is there are a lot of manoeuvers an unmanned craft can perform at high speeds that would be impossible for a human. I'm no expert on this sort of thing obviously but I do know that in a dogfight altitude is one of the keys to success and an aircraft that can climb faster and with more agility than its counterpart is going to have a huge advantage. That's really not a good comparison here. Nobody is debating the speed vs agility. Agility has proven it can more than compensate for lower speed in alot of cases. An unmanned craft, however, can accomplish both better than its human piloted counterpart. No question there. The F-35 from what I understand is intended to be in service until 2040. I don't see things changing right away. The only thing I'm debating is that unmanned craft will eventually be able to vastly outperform manned air vehicles. I don't want it to happen and I'm terrified about an AI controlled weapon. I don't like the idea of taking the 'personal touch' out of war either. I agree with ALMOST everything you're saying.

Smartass

and why is that might you ask?

Yeah I meant to respond to this sooner. It's kind of hard to give a solid figure but if you've only been back in Canada for a few years and the past 20-30 years were spent outside of Canada, it's probably safe to say that you're far removed from what we'd typically call Canadian. It's kind of hard for a lot of people to believe that a potential leader really has his interests vested in Canada when he's not lived here in forever. If he'd been here for say 5-10 years before running for the leadership maybe it would be more believable, but the fact that he was parachuted into the position shortly after returning kind of indicates why he came back in the first place.

Mapleleafweb is, however, probably not the best sample for this sort of poll. The fact that we're interested enough in politics to actually talk about it while at work/in our spare time suggests that we're not typical of the stupid/ignorant/apathetic electorate.

but you have to weigh the benefits vs the risks. Eventually maybe your son will be knee-deep in muck waiting for air support only to have a friendly manned fighter shot down by a remotely piloted UAV that doesn't have to worry about G forces when making high speed climbs. Given the limitations of the human body, it's really only a matter of time before it simply cannot compete with an unmanned counterpart. I understand what you're saying completely but the grim reality is that man was not meant to fly upwards at Mach 2.