Israelis want peace you say?

[bush_cheney2004]

....Why is it harder than kill and ethnic cleanse, or depart for search of other, "less contentious" lands, I can't quite figure out. Fortunately, I don't have to.

Correct...you don't have to...because we live in nations that completed such dirty work long ago. Leaves plenty of time to sit and smugly judge Israel.

[WIP]

Do you mean that it's Egypt that's bombing and shelling Gaza as we (speak) write here?

You know what it means! It means that even the Egyptian Government can't trust Hamas and allow their border with Gaza to be an open border. But the story about Hamas refusing Egyptian medical assistance and refusing to allow injured to be transported to Egyptian hospitals, is an even more damning indictment of their character and contempt for life.

So you support the right of any minority to unilaterally proclaim and forcefully establish independent state, if they have some justification (e.g. ethinic frictions, conflicts, etc), as most minorities do? Yes or no? Does it apply everythere in a universal manner, or only to certain specific minorities? Who decides which ones? How?

Did I say that? Any minority? All I know is that in this example, it may be a situation of kill or be killed. If I was living in Israel, I don't think I'd be willing to trust my fate in the hands of the Palestinians, no matter which side was governing. But, I am not married to either side of this cause, unlike you apparently are; if I was living in Israel, I might have been inclined to do what many of the less religiously devout Israelis have done in recent years -- move to the U.S. or Europe.

A much easier solution would be of course, for Israel to come to terms with the fact that they created a historic injustice to the local people and offer a fair and reasonable peace that would allow both sides to live in their own lands and at least co-exists.

Why is it harder than kill and ethnic cleanse, or depart for search of other, "less contentious" lands, I can't quite figure out. Fortunately, I don't have to.

The Israelis also responded to an historic injustice -- the horrible treatment they received in Palestine throughout their history in the region, and in Europe of course. If it wasn't for the overriding doctrine that Muslim dominance of Jerusalem was essential, more pragmatic thinkers in the areas surrounding Israel may have realized that the influx of European Jews to Palestine opened up the prospects of economic achievement and modernization of living standards, that had never been possible previously. During the long reign of the Ottoman Empire, this area was treated like a backwater, only important for its strategic location and little else.

And once again, the prospects for compromise from the Israeli side, lessen as the more secular Jews depart and are replaced with the zealous orthodox Jews who will fight it out to the death. I know I would have likely left Israel if I had to live under the present circumstances, so I can't speak for the ones who consider it something worth fighting for.

[dub]

Correct...you don't have to...because we live in nations that completed such dirty work long ago. Leaves plenty of time to sit and smugly judge Israel.

we're judging israel because they are violating international law. international law which allowed israel to be created.

i'm responding to someone with the name bush_cheney2004. with a name like that, you make it difficult not to judge you.

[bush_cheney2004]

we're judging israel because they are violating international law. international law which allowed israel to be created.

Allowed? Hardly a strong endorsement given what really happened.

i'm responding to someone with the name bush_cheney2004. with a name like that, you make it difficult not to judge you.

If you want to play games with a "name" like "dub" as well, I am more than happy to dish out my own judgements.

[dub]

Allowed? Hardly a strong endorsement given what really happened.

If you want to play games with a "name" like "dub" as well, I am more than happy to dish out my own judgements.

allowed: look up resolution 181.

name: there are no games being played. i just wonder whether you support bush and cheney or you have chosen the name as a joke since they're part of one of the worst governments in U.S. history (accordingly to the american people - and to the world)

[bush_cheney2004]

allowed: look up resolution 181.

Look up Declaration of Independence and 1948 Arab-Israeli War. International Law my ass.

name: there are no games being played. i just wonder whether you support bush and cheney or you have chosen the name as a joke since they're part of one of the worst governments in U.S. history (accordingly to the american people - and to the world)

And I was wondering if "dub" refers to "copy"....i.e. zero original thinking. And I guess you are true to that based on regurgitation of the "world's" opinion.

PS...Even a bad day with the US Government is better than much of what "the world" has to offer on a good day.

[myata]

Correct...you don't have to...because we live in nations that completed such dirty work long ago. Leaves plenty of time to sit and smugly judge Israel.

You're right of course. Other than in those times the right of the might was the established, respected moral principle. Peoples of the world counted their moral superiority by how many a... they have kicked.

Now we pretend to be different. Better. Terms like peace, humanity and justice fly around (particularly from some of our leaders) all the time. Yet somehow, we still manage to look not so very much different after all, from those good old times. Paradoxes!

Edited January 16, 2009 by myata

[myata]

Did I say that? Any minority? All I know is that in this example, it may be a situation of kill or be killed.

How do you know that? Because it's your view of the "circumstances"? Historic records show (please refer to the archives of the forum) dramatic increase in Jewish population of the lands in the decades preceding proclamation of the state. No records (to the best of my knowledge) of any major crimes against humanity as we call them now. Are you sure there's enough "historic injustice" there, to justify what has been done by Israel's leadership of the time? Or is more because they saw that they could (get away with it). In the circumstances.

But here's the thing, a logical paradox from which there's no escape. If my survival, in the way me, and me only see it, justifies anything I do, then anything I do is by definition justified, moral, and appropriate. Because me and me only set the terms of my survival.

And because this is common logic, it has to be universal, i.e. applies to everybody regardless of any factor of their life. So Israel's doing something to survive, and Hamaz is doing something else - guess why? - to the same glorious end.

Everybody's doing what they have to, i.e. surviving over somebody else's backs. You simply have to accept this nice and very clear moral picture of the world. Unless of course, you start asking questions like, e.g. does my survival have to mean suffering of somebody else? and e.g. is there really no way I could survive now without hurting somebody else?

[M.Dancer]

we're judging israel because they are violating international law. international law which allowed israel to be created.

Which international law exactly have they violated?

[Oleg Bach]

Which international law exactly have they violated?

When Israel was created originally it was in good faith. Now they have grown proud and arrogant and feel untouchable - and the new generation can not relate to why Israel was originally established - in one generation the moral fiber of this tiny nation has disapated into the ether. It's like assisting a little brother in a school yard fight - but you assist to long and that little brother becomes a mindless bully who considers himself entitled - remove American support from Israel and what do you have? A few nasty corrupt leaders who abuse and use the Jews..who are armed with nukes in a place so tiny they can not use them...what a joke.

[WIP]

How do you know that? Because it's your view of the "circumstances"? Historic records show (please refer to the archives of the forum) dramatic increase in Jewish population of the lands in the decades preceding proclamation of the state.

Is it worth noting that Jews and organizations like the World Zionist Organization, purchased land to build Jewish settlements in Palestine? The implicit assumption in most of the propaganda is that they just came in and forcibly took the land from the Arabs:

By the middle of the 19th century Jews had built the first neighborhood outside the city walls of Jerusalem, land for farming was purchased throughout the country and the Hebrew language was revived as a spoken tongue.

As early as 1898, at the Second Zionist Congress in Basle, Zionists recognized the importance of settling the Land for national revival. In time they founded the Jewish National Fund to purchase land for the Jewish people and to set up villages.

The Jewish National Fund - Keren Kayemet L'Israel - the land purchase and development fund of the Zionist Organization, was founded at the Fifth Zionist Congress in December 1901. It was resolved that "The JNF shall be the eternal possession of the Jewish people. Its funds shall not be used except for the purchase of lands..." In the early years, the JNF acquired tracts of lands with funds raised from Jews abroad, in the Galilee, in Judea and near Lake Kinneret. The first large area acquired in 1921, in the Jezreel Valley, increased the JNF's holdings to nearly 15,000 acres (60,000 dunams). Jewish-owned land and settlements rapidly increased, despite legal restrictions imposed by the British administration. JNF leasehold contracts run for 49 years and can be prolonged by the lessee or his heirs for as long as they serve the purpose specified.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Modern%2...d%20of%20Israel

No records (to the best of my knowledge) of any major crimes against humanity as we call them now.

NO major crimes! What would you call the Hebron Massacre of 1929 then?

But here's the thing, a logical paradox from which there's no escape. If my survival, in the way me, and me only see it, justifies anything I do, then anything I do is by definition justified, moral, and appropriate. Because me and me only set the terms of my survival.

And because this is common logic, it has to be universal, i.e. applies to everybody regardless of any factor of their life. So Israel's doing something to survive, and Hamaz is doing something else - guess why? - to the same glorious end.

For that argument to work, you would have to be able to make a reasonable case that the Palestinians' very existence is under threat by the Israelis, and that they also have an enemy dedicated to their destruction. The problem is that Israel has won every war with its Arab neighbours since 1948, and occupied Gaza and the West Bank since the Six Day War of 1967. The Palestinians may have a case of being marginalized and encroached upon by Jewish settlements -- but this still doesn't qualify as equivalent to the existential threat that Israel is faced with by neighbours who endlessly declare their intentions to destroy them.

Before the first Intifada, there may have been an argument that the Israeli settlement policy would keep moving more and more Jews into the occupied territories, and that this presented a threat of annexation. But aside from the most extreme religious zealots, who are generously funded by Christian Zionists in the U.S.A., the vast majority of Israelis want a pullout of the occupied territories if it comes with a trustworthy guarantee of peace and security.

Now, back to that question of what are you willing to do for the cause of national security -- I think the IDF has already been presented with the prospect of either do nothing about the rocket attacks, or attack the Hamas HQ that these rats have built right under the Shifa Hospital in Gaza....and it just so happens that this hospital is located in the middle of a crowded city.

This leaves no other option but to send an armed force into the city and take their bunkers, deliberately placed in hospitals, clinics and schools. Hamas is betting that any military action will result in high civilian casualties and the shocking video images of watching a hospital burn......again, I have to ask: what kind of animals would deliberately hide behind sick and injured civilians and deliberately put them in the line of fire?

If this sort of warfare continues on without end, it will leave even more Israelis consider leaving or end up becoming as barbaric as the Palestinians.

[myata]

Is it worth noting that Jews and organizations like the World Zionist Organization, purchased land to build Jewish settlements in Palestine? The implicit assumption in most of the propaganda is that they just came in and forcibly took the land from the Arabs:

You must be serious here, right? So, if I buy land somewhere in Russia today, I'll be fully and moraly justified to proclaim independent state there couple decades on?

Be careful of the level of arguments you use to support your position, lest it makes it absolutely clear that there're none.

NO major crimes! What would you call the Hebron Massacre of 1929 then?

Any loss of life is regrettable. But putting things into perspective, from your own link: "The Hebron Massacre refers to the mass murder of sixty-seven Jews on 23 and 24 August 1929 in Hebron" (Wikipedia). Death toll from street crime in Toronto last year was close to 100. Or take for example, that recent operation in Gaza; or the previous one, in Lebanon? Not to forget that mass foreign immigration into already populated areas is bound to create ethnic tensions, for which the farthers of the project should shoulder at least some of the blame, wouldn't somebody think so?

For that argument to work, you would have to be able to make a reasonable case that the Palestinians' very existence is under threat by the Israelis, and that they also have an enemy dedicated to their destruction. The problem is that Israel has won every war with its Arab neighbours since 1948, and occupied Gaza and the West Bank since the Six Day War of 1967. The Palestinians may have a case of being marginalized and encroached upon by Jewish settlements -- but this still doesn't qualify as equivalent to the existential threat that Israel is faced with by neighbours who endlessly declare their intentions to destroy them.

No, eh? Being cut, rounded up and squeezed out of their own land does not qualify? While coming from abroad, kicking somebody out of your way, does? No surprise really: we all know that anything we do can be justified (by ourselves), and we'll be extremely creative about it (because above all, it's a matter of SURVIVAL). And as you know, I'm fine with that. As long as we say it honestly and clearly, without pretending to be, somehow, better than those we chose to harass and disposess.

This leaves no other option but to send an armed force into the city and take their bunkers, deliberately placed in hospitals, clinics and schools. Hamas is betting that any military action will result in high civilian casualties and the shocking video images of watching a hospital burn......again, I have to ask: what kind of animals would deliberately hide behind sick and injured civilians and deliberately put them in the line of fire?

You know that saying, do you: "if hammer is all you've got, everything looks like a nail"?

If this sort of warfare continues on without end, it will leave even more Israelis consider leaving or end up becoming as barbaric as the Palestinians.

Wow. Assuming that as of this moment, they're still "better" (less "barbaric" that is). I wonder in what way would it (that inherent moral superiority) manifest itself though?

Edited January 17, 2009 by myata

[WIP]

You must be serious here, right? So, if I buy land somewhere in Russia today, I'll be fully and moraly justified to proclaim independent state there couple decades on?

Land purchases began when the Ottoman Empire governed Palestine, and continued after WWI, when the British were in charge. Britain was not interested in running a permanent occupation, and had determined even before the Balfour Declaration, that the differences between Jews and Arabs living there would not make a unified Palestinian state possible. And that flies in the face of all of the airy fairy propaganda that hardcore leftists and Muslim apologists shovel out that everything was peace and harmony before the Zionists arrived. The truth is the small Jewish populations in Jerusalem, Hebron and other cities had to quietly exist in their ghettos, just the same as the Jews who lived in Europe, and try not to be noticed and raise the risk of mob attacks and murders by Arab neighbours (just like Europe). By the end of the 19th Century, even the Jews who had historical roots in Palestine were getting sick of being 2nd class citizens and wanted independence from Turkish and Arab rule.

Any loss of life is regrettable. But putting things into perspective, from your own link: "The Hebron Massacre refers to the mass murder of sixty-seven Jews on 23 and 24 August 1929 in Hebron" (Wikipedia). Death toll from street crime in Toronto last year was close to 100. Or take for example, that recent operation in Gaza; or the previous one, in Lebanon? Not to forget that mass foreign immigration into already populated areas is bound to create ethnic tensions, for which the farthers of the project should shoulder at least some of the blame, wouldn't somebody think so?

You know, I would take the new age flower child crappola you frequently post a little more seriously if your respect for human life included your political enemies as well! Sure, any loss of life is regrettable, but Toronto is the largest city in Canada -- the Hebron Massacre destroyed an entire community, as the survivors had to be evacuated to safer locations, and that qualifies it as genocide by any definition. The Wiki article also notes the Arab expropriation of the property these people had. Today there is a tiny enclave of Orthodox Jewish zealots who re established a Jewish presence in Hebron....and as might be suspected, their Palestinian neighbours are trying to kill them every time they have an opportunity. When the Israeli government took control of the area, they could have just as easily told the Arab interlopers to get out, since they had taken the land through murder and intimidation. The equivalent Arab charges that the Jews drove Palestinians from their land in 1948, fail to note that the surrounding Arab states had invaded to try to prevent the Jews from declaring independence. Many of those same Palestinians were forced out of their homes by the invading Egyptian and Syrian forces.

No, eh? Being cut, rounded up and squeezed out of their own land does not qualify? While coming from abroad, kicking somebody out of your way, does? No surprise really: we all know that anything we do can be justified (by ourselves), and we'll be extremely creative about it (because above all, it's a matter of SURVIVAL).

I said before, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I nevertheless reject the notion that both sides in a conflict have to be equally morally culpable for the conflict and the consequences. I think the evidence is overwhelming that even the hardline Zionists would gladly trade land for peace, if it is a guaranteed peace, and not another ceasefire until the Arabs feel ready to try to destroy the Jews again.

[dub]

Look up Declaration of Independence and 1948 Arab-Israeli War. International Law my ass.

And I was wondering if "dub" refers to "copy"....i.e. zero original thinking. And I guess you are true to that based on regurgitation of the "world's" opinion.

PS...Even a bad day with the US Government is better than much of what "the world" has to offer on a good day.

dub.. copy? zing?

so you do support bush and cheney? how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

[myata]

Land purchases began when the Ottoman Empire governed Palestine, and continued after WWI, when the British were in charge. Britain was not interested in running a permanent occupation, and had determined even before the Balfour Declaration, that the differences between Jews and Arabs living there would not make a unified Palestinian state possible.

OK, same British who screwed up a lot of other places, also have "decided" something here. That's what was being said all along - our interference messes up lives of others, which they eventually realize and turn back on us - possibly, generations later. But what is your point?

And that flies in the face of all of the airy fairy propaganda that hardcore leftists and Muslim apologists shovel out that everything was peace and harmony before the Zionists arrived.

Quite possibly it "flies". What I said here though, was that "most minorities do have incidents in their history".

The question is not whether minorities have the right to survive, but whether anything they do (claiming survival justification) is really justified.

You know, I would take the new age flower child crappola you frequently post a little more seriously if your respect for human life included your political enemies as well!

I could ask the same question, except with more factual foundation. Does this incident, along with possibly many other ones, on either side, somehow justify far greater injustices that have been set in motion in the years following the establishment of Israel? Was there really no way to achieve the same goal without inflicting them?

I said before, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I nevertheless reject the notion that both sides in a conflict have to be equally morally culpable for the conflict and the consequences. I think the evidence is overwhelming that even the hardline Zionists would gladly trade land for peace, if it is a guaranteed peace, and not another ceasefire until the Arabs feel ready to try to destroy the Jews again.

And that is your problem. You whitewash or simply refuse to see the injustices your side has committed, dehumanise the other people as plunderes, murderers and barbarians, and then try to claim moral superiority where it simply does not exist. Sure a way to start looking for peace.

BTW what "evidence"? Perhaps 70% expansion of settlements, while "trading land for peace"? No I think we are talking more about something else here, "land and peace, because we can". It's an illusion of course, but sadly it'll take time and much suffering to understand this.