Bob

I don't know who Efraim Karsh is, but this doesn't sound like a legitimate criticism. Benny Morris is pretty legitimate, he's certainly not some type of anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist deceiver like Norman Finkelstein or Ilan Pappe.

Thanks for the kind words. The story of Israel really is a beautiful story of a struggle from freedom and self-determination. Nothing was given to us. It was all blood, sweat, and tears. It was particularly reprehensible for dre to suggest that somehow Israel is some sort of gift from the Goyim. Excuse the expletive, but I find statements such as dre's particularly reprehensible - and I've heard that kinda crap many, many, many times.

You're utilizing moral relativism, by implying that both Israel and Hamas and its terrorist affiliates are equal in their conduct. You take the simplistic and flawed approach by describing Cast Least as "murderous and unjustified", using harsh terms to describe Israel's legitimate self-defense operations. Certainly when you bring up Cast Lead, you drop all the relevant context that gives people a true picture of events - years of rocket fire, weapons smuggling, bomb planting near the border, shootings, and other terrorist activities. Now to address dre's comment regarding what he seems to think is unfair or excessive labelling of Israel's opponents as anti-Semitic, you're building a strawman. Nowhere did anyone ever say that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. That's a claim you and others make in order to deny the role anti-Semitism plays in criticism of Israel and the threat it poses to the safety of the Jewish people. Whether or not you acknowledge it, anti-Semitism is a massive part of the anti-Israel crew. Certain types of criticisms can be accurately described as anti-Semitism, whether or not the person advancing these criticisms realizes it. People can be ignorantly racist. Denying Jewish independence via statehood or rejecting Zionism is anti-Semitic. I'll repeat myself one last time in order to be extremely clear - not all criticisms of Israel are anti-Semitic. I never said that, and neither did anyone else in here. That's a strawman argument you created in order to deflect; it was your failed attempt at an artful dodge. When delving deeper, though, to core issues, often the loudest and harshest critics of Israel will naturally expose their anti-Semitic foundations.

I remember reading that close to 900 000 Jews were removed from Arab lands following 1948. Again, the reasons for their departure are diverse. Some were literally forced to leave as their properties were confiscated and civil rights denied, other fled because of lower forms of discrimination and violence (real or anticipated), and others left for ideological or materialistic reasons. I see it as a bittersweet story, as these Jews fled their homes, but hopefully their lives were upgraded materialistically, politically, and spiritually here in Israel.

Why is Benny Morris not a credible source? His numbers, as far as I can see, are widely accepted by the history-scene. Certainly it is true that the Arabs that left their homes in 1948 did so for many reasons - some were forced out by the Jewish army (rightfully so), some fled out of fear, and others left confidently believing that the Jewish independence movement would be defeated and that they would eventually return. Either way, thank God that they were removed for these reasons because without that occurrence, we would still be homeless, stateless, and subjugated under the rule of non-Jews. Only with a strong majority, at a minimum, can our national rights be actualized in our homeland. We have nothing to apologize for.

It's pretty sad how dre tries to explain the reason for the UN's virtually singular focus on Israel as the result of legitimate international interests. The obvious truth is that the UN is a soapbox upon which Arab and Muslim interests are given a loudspeaker through which to project their perspectives of reality. A seat is given to the USA as well as to Rwanda. Another pair of seats includes Canada and Qatar. Get my drift? It's a silly system where illegitimate voices are given legitimacy. Moreover, many countries align themselves with the Arab League countries for other political reasons. The UN's seemingly singular focus on Israel is entirely a function of the massive global Muslim population and the Muslim world's virtual uniform perspective of Israel - it is an illegitimate country. I don't want to delve into the details, but beyond the obsession with Israel at the UN, the criticism's of Israel are almost exclusively unjustifiable. Rather than acknowledge the truth, dre prefers to give false justifications. One more thing, and the most offensive statement so far in this thread, is the suggestion that somehow the UN gave Israel to the Jewish people via the Partition Plan of 1947. Although important, the 1947 Partition Plan is just a part in a much larger story that is the birth of Israel. It's a story about the Jewish people and our struggle. It's a story about emancipation from persecution and genocide and a dream to secure true independence in this world and have our voices heard. You think a little fucking document built this country? Did that document get shot at and murdered in anti-Semitic pogroms in the pre-Israel Palestine Mandate in the decades leading up to 1948? Did that document fight, bleed, and die in 1948, 1954, 1967, 1973, or 1982? It always drives me nuts when I read verminous filth suggesting that somehow the world "gave" us our own land. The UN's recognition of Jewish independence via the 1947 Partition Plan was just that - a recognition. Jewish statehood was already here, and there was no stopping us.

I specifically stated that I was not talking about 1948, but events afterwards. There are many lies that are commonly spread when discussing the Israel-Arab conflict, one being that Israel has some sort of policy of "ethnic cleansing" where we keep expelling Palestinians from their homes. That is simply a lie, and I'll call that lie out when I see it. I have read all of Benny Morris' books, by the way.

Any Palestinian who was forced from his or her home since 1967 was done, for the most part, for valid reasons. Furthermore, it's insignificant in the big scheme of things. Some Palestinians have launched grievances with the Supreme Court of Israel and been compensated. That's another subject, entirely. Jews have also been removed from their homes, as well. But of course that's not something you'll ever mention. If you want to talk about animosity between Arabs and Jews with respect to residency, let's do that. You're intentionally trying to paint a picture of Jewish intolerance by omitting Palestinian intolerance of Jews. It is a crime in PA-administered areas to sell property to Jews, punishable by death. For every Rabbi making a statement in support of keeping Jewish communities Jewish, which I completely understand, there are many more Arab religious leaders and politicians saying the same or worse. The desire of the Jewish and Arab communities to separate from one another is largely mutual. You're painting a false picture. Are you so arrogant as to be telling me how things are within the country in which I live? I live here, in Jerusalem, the focal point of these tensions. I've been deeply connected to these issues for nearly two decades, and voraciously consuming information from all sides on these issues for over a decade. I can assure you, you have no insights to offer me.

I shouldn't need to clarify, but what I meant was nobody was forced from their homes en masse. Housing demolitions used to punish the families of terrorists or destruction of illegally-built homes is another matter entirely. Also, some houses and other properties were destroyed during military operations for security operations (in order to safely travel from one point to another, or to make room for the security barrier). Still, it's not very important and perhaps amounts to a few hundred people being affected since 1967. It's insignificant, and certainly doesn't amount the "ethnic cleansing or ongoing and widespread expulsion and appropriation of land being suggested by GostHacked.

Israel made an offer to relinquish 99.9% of the Golan to Syria, keeping about 300 metres of it. The offer was refused. I forget the year and date, but I will find the details and update this post.

Nobody was forced from their homes since 1948. At that point the refugee problem came into existence. The picture you are trying to paint is completely false. We are not in the process of driving people from their homes or starving them out of existence. The areas into which Israel "expands" are unpopulated areas. Even the PA, decades ago, stopped using such stupid rhetoric as you're using now. The Palestinian population in Israel, and in Judea and Samaria is growing, and their economy is growing (although their economy is a house of cards built on donations). Nobody is being forced out of an anywhere. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. That's because you don't know anything about Israeli history. Israel has given a lot. Whether it be the Egyptian peace agreement in 1979, or the offers made to Syria, or the Jordanian peace agreement in 1994. Israel, through different governments and at different times, have made a variety of offers to the PA for final-status issues. Israel also withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Of course, you know nothing about this. And of course, that doesn't stop you from speaking on the subject.

Look, at the risk of being simplistic, we live on top of each other. That's the thing that makes this conflict so complicated. Even worse, the majority of of these populations don't want to live around the other. This is why there is an unofficial segregation in this country which is voluntarily adhered to by both Jews and Arabs. There are Arab communities, Arab business districts, and Arab schools, as well as Jewish communities, Jewish business districts, and Jewish schools. There are legitimate reasons behind this separation which I don't feel like getting into at the moment, but I can explain it later. The reasons tend to apply to both sides. This is a really messed up situation.

It's not only acceptable, it's necessary. Housing costs are very high in Jerusalem, and the only way to ameliorate this problem is to put a downward pressure on costs by increasing supply. This is not a joke, I would venture a guess that at least 20% of the Jewish population of Jerusalem lives below the national poverty line. The cost of living in Jerusalem is higher than most large Canadian cities, and the worst part is that the salaries here are a fraction of what they are in large Canadian cities. The housing situation in Jerusalem can certainly be described as a real municipal crises, and it's getting worse. The problem is that whenever construction begins to take place to service the Jewish population, there are cries of outrage claiming that we are stealing Palestinian land. We cannot relegate all of our developments to certain parts of Jerusalem for political purposes. Jerusalem isn't just some dot on a map for pundits to cry about on television, it's a real city with real problems. Things in Jerusalem will happen organically as they occur in other cities. There are many important areas of Jerusalem which qualify as "East Jerusalem" which Jews should not be prohibited from being able to access in order to appease political tensions. The recent news focus on the Sheppard Hotel is another artificial controversy designed to stoke the flames and denigrate Israel. The property by purchased by the billionaire Moscovitz many years ago, and now he wants to develop the property to become an apartment. Don't be fooled by the headlines into thinking this is some sort of imperialistic land-grab. The hotel (I walked by it a few days ago) has been out-of-commission for man years, and the truth about this story is that the only reason there is opposition to it is because it will cater to observant Jews in the city. The Arabs don't want to see the beginning of a Jewish community in their neighbourhood, end of story. As far as "demolishing homes of Palestinians", you'll need to be more specific.

One more thing you need to understand is that different settlements contain different types of Jewish communities. Consider the settlement of Kiryat Arba adjacent to Hebron. I am certain that the resident of that community are more right-wing, less sympathetic to Arab grievances, more rigid with respect to the sacrifices they think Israel should make towards a peaceful resolution, and more religiously observant than the residents of the Gush Etzion or Pizgat Zev settlements (both of which will always be a part of Israel). This is partly due to the hostilities these settlers have been directly affected by, basically vicious terrorism. They are also religiously motivated, however, as Hebron is one of the most important locations in Jewish history. It is highly important to us, spiritually. Aside from all the, you need to know that different settlements are composed differently. Generally speaking, the political/religious composition of settlements that are adjacent to or near the 1948 armistice lines are more in-line with national averages, while the populations in settlements that are deeper in the "West Bank" tend to have larger proportions of right-wing national-religious settlers. The deeper settlements, generally speaking, are the ones that will likely be relinquished to Palestinian sovereignty in the event of final status peace agreement. If you're interested, read Dennis Ross' "The Missing Peace" to view maps that illustrate proposals made by Israel to Arafat in the years leading up to 2001's collapse.

I didn't say that.

A lot of the settlement locations are based on various needs, including security, and proximity to major population/business/political centres such as Jerusalem. Some settlement locations are based on spiritual and religious needs, such as the Jewish communities in and near Hebron. Others don't serve much of a practical purpose. You're in no position to be telling others about the reasons for settlements in a broad sense, especially considering that there is no one-size-fits-all simplistic answer as you're trying to portray. You also managed to slip in a vile suggestion that Israel doesn't want peace and intentionally tries to derail movements towards and equitable resolution to the conflict.

I don't even know why I waste time with you. I ignored most of your previous post because it was mostly irrelevant and nonsensical. It's quite rich for you to be telling me about anti-Semitism and how you see it as "overblown".

Clearly you don't understand the various types of settlers, or the various settlements. I live in an area that will never be under Palestinian sovereignty. I live in a neighborhood that was under construction very shortly after Jerusalem was liberated after the Six-Day War. I live just a few kilometres from the Old City. According to some, this is "occupied territory" as the neighbourhood in which I live is across the 1948 armistice lines. I live here because I like this neighborhood and it's near my language school, work, and major arteries. The settler-image in your mind is probably the religious nationalists who believe in Greater Israel - Israel as defined by the Torah. They often view settling the land of Israel as a commandment from God (and it is, by the way) and a virtuous act. They also tend to be very unsympathetic to Arab grievances. These settler compose perhaps one-third, at most, of the settler population living in the "West Bank" (excluding the major population centres such as Ma'aleh Adumim adjacent to Jerusalem) far-out settlements. What you and others like you need to understand is that certain major settlement blocks are not up for negotiation. My neighbourhood is one of those areas. This is true for many reasons, including the importance of many homes, institutions, and businesses here, value, as well as security issues. Pizgat Zev is another example of a Jewish community that is referred to as an "illegal settlement" which will never be given away. This is simply reality. People who live in these neighbourhoods come in all flavours, religious, not-so-religious, political, apolitical, right-wing, centrist, leftist, gay, straight, whatever. People in these neighbourhoods don't fit the stereotype you have in your mind of the evil right-wing religious settler. The main think I hope you learn from this post is that there are settlements and then there are settlements. Not all are the same. A majority of Israelis are willing to relinquish the smaller, newer, more fringe settlements. The place where I live, however, while technically a "settlement" according to some, is simply not on the table for negotiation. Everyone who is connected and knowledgeable about this conflict and the territories involved (you're not a part of this group) knows this. Remember, there are settlements, and then there are settlements. Some are negotiable, others are not. Typically, the further-out settlements tend to have strong minorities of national-religious advocates for Greater-Israel, not so much the neighbourhoods such as the one I live in.

You need to understand that issues surrounding Israel are often perceived, rightly or wrongly, as existential for the Jewish people. When people criticize Cast Lead in a generic way, and I'm not talking about you because I don't know if I discussed that issue in here, it feels anti-Semitic. Why? Because Cast Lead was another example in a long history of conflict of Israel defending itself, and engaging in particularly dangerous activities that placed our soldiers and communities at risk in order to reduce potential harm to civilians. The Jewish people simply never get accustomed to the constant attacks on our legitimate rights to self-defense. I'm also not trying to revisit that debate, but I'm giving you a mainstream Jewish perspective. If I get attacked and defend myself, and you go an tell me I have no right to defend myself and that it's my fault I was attacked in the first place, then you'll be perceived as anti-Semitic by many Jews. That's reality. One more thing, I think anti-Semitism certainly is NOT overblown. It's very real, and it's entrenched in the ideologies of our enemies. It motivates and incites those who kill us. Jews are at risk every day simply for being Jewish. I've been attacked several times for being Jewish... in Ottawa! My Jewish day-school was vandalized with swastikas, and some graves where my grandfather is buried were desecrated in a Jewish cemetery a few years back. You don't pay attention to anti-Semitism like we do, and you're certainly not affected by it. You can be forgiven for not being in touch with its manifestations and prevalence. Don't be so bold to tell us how big of a deal it is, though. There are six million dead Jews resulting from anti-Semitism - the threat of it and how seriously we take it is certainly not overblown. I won't even get into how modern anti-Semitism is manifesting itself among Israel's enemies - primarily some components of the left and the Arab/Muslim causes they advocate for.

I'm too tired to spend time looking for the post(s) I'm about to reply to, but I did read messages in this thread suggesting that the reasons Palestinians from Jerusalem would prefer to keep (or acquire if they haven't already received it) their Israeli citizenships in the event of the establishment of a Palestinian state are based on "freedom of movement" issues. Any reasonable and informed person knows that Palestinian statehood would not include an Israeli presence within the Palestinian state. Checkpoints and other security measures that can restrict freedom of movement would no longer exist in such a scenario. Palestinians who were polled for this story know full well that freedom of movement was not an issue for the hypothetical Palestinian state. They tend to prefer Israeli citizenship for the reasons I've already listed. There's a materialistic component, to be sure, but there is a strong ideological and political reason for desiring the be Israeli, as well. Moreover, nobody in here can address the burning question: if Arabs are oppressed and discriminated against in Israel as severely as Israel's fiercest critics would lead you to believe, why would they not wish to emancipate themselves from the yoke of Israeli oppression and actualize their desires for self-determination and independence in a future Palestinian state? Rest assured, this question will not be answered seriously by anyone in here, for obvious reasons.

It depends on which settlements you're talking about, and what kind of freeze you're talking about. Israel did freeze all settlement activity for eleven months, beginning in late 2009 (November, I think?). We got nothing during that time, except increased shouts for a settlement-extension towards the end of the freeze and MORE terrorism during the entire period of time. The exception of course was Jerusalem, as necessary construction occurred during that time and continues today, as it should. There's no need to offer the carrot of freezing settlement developments when we get nothing in return. I think the population of Jews living across the 1948 armistice lines, "settlers", now totals over 300 000. These are communities with needs for growth. We're not going to punish them and forbid them from building what they need (roads, schools, apartments, businesses, etc) when we get nothing in return from the PA. You need to give something to get something. Continued terrorism, incitement, and political warfare from the Palestinians and their supporters doesn't incentivize Israel to make concessions for the sake of making concessions.

The poll results are probably still relatively accurate. Not much has changed in the past eleven months with respect to Israeli-Jewish perspectives towards this conflict.

The Israeli government isn't defying the Israeli majority, as peace talks have been virtually non-existent for years. In the context of an agreement, a majority of Israelis support withdrawing from parts of what you refer to as the West Bank. The important fact that you're ignoring in order to advance your political perspective is that there are no current negotiations taking place, let alone an agreement. Do you expect Israel to begin to evacuate Jewish communities proactively without receiving guarantees from the PA with respect to their end of the negotiations (security, refugees, borders, and Jerusalem)? In the absence of negotiations and without an agreement to resolve final status issues, why are you expecting the Israeli government to dismantle Jewish communities beyond the 1948 armistice lines? Consider a simple scenario, you and I are negotiating over the price of a home. You're trying to sell it, and I'm trying to buy it. We cannot agree on certain terms. I want some repairs and a lower price. Are you going to repair the home before we've made an agreement? Unless you're a fool, you will not do that until we've signed an agreement. The same is true in this scenario, why would Israel proactively undertake a massive endeavour such as evacuating certain Jewish communities in Judeah or Samaria outside of negotiations of a final status agreement? Once again, the majority of Israelis support withdrawal and evacuation from many settlements in Judea and Samaria in the context of an agreement, and not simply just for the hell of it. This is an important distinction you're not making.

J-Street isn't completely irreligious, there are religious individuals and organizations associated with J-Street that invoke their interpretations of Jewish teachings in order to reinforce their political perspectives. That needs to be clarified. There's a man, Rabbi Lerner, who I am quite sure I have seen doing the media-circuit doing advocacy for J-Street's political perspectives. Although he seems like a reformist, he's probably one of the more well-known religious individuals associated with J-Street. Moreover, and more broadly, I'm not sure how we can define a "peace movement" with uniform acceptance. I am quite certain that my definition of "peace movement" greatly diverges from the definition of "peace movement" subscribed to by Israel's enemies. Let us consider an infamous anti-Israel poster who shall not be named - this poster would only attach the term "peace movement" to an organization that is anti-Zionistic and supports acquiescing to all of the demands from the PA, Hamas, Hezbollah, Arab League, UN, and EU. To any honest, reasonable, and intelligent observer, an organization that advocates these position isn't a "peace organization", but rather an organization that advocated for the abolishment of Jewish independence and eventual suicide of the Jewish people. If we get to the root of jbg's message, it is quite clear to me that he doesn't see a significant movement among Muslim communities at home or abroad that strongly reject terrorism coming from Islamic groups. For every statement I read from organizations like CAIR condemning terrorism, they always make another few statements that seem to justify terrorism. In my view, the most prominent Islamic PR organizations in the Western world seem to speak out of both sides of their mouth when addressing the threat of terrorism we face from Islamic organizations and governments. I understand that this is somewhat inevitable when dealing with the thorny issue of contemporary terrorism and its connection to Islam, as words need to be carefully selected in order not to indict massive populations of Muslims. Still, as a person who consumes massive amounts of information regarding these subjects, and as someone who frequents Islamic PR websites and reads their statements, in my view these organizations virtually always cast blame for terrorism on the West, make excuses and justifications for the phenomenon of terrorism, and misrepresent the severity of the threat as well as efforts undertaken by Western government to address this threat.

You can say that, and it is true that the UN doesn't recognize the 1967 Israeli-annexation of liberated portions of Jerusalem from Jordanian occupation. The reality is, however, that Israeli law is in effect and enforced in what you refer to as East Jerusalem. So for all the Arabs that live in East Jerusalem (a term with a few definitions, I might add), including myself, we need to be cognizant to obey Israel law or else. Day-to-day life here is under Israeli sovereignty, regardless of proclamations at the UN or from anti-Israeli internet forum patrons such as yourself. There's rhetoric, and then there's reality.