Israel's New Best Friend?

[Bonam]

They arent settling the west bank and drilling wells there for self defense. Theyre doing it because they want the resources there. They need the water. And thats exactly why Israel expanded into the areas they did during the war.

Purely your opinion and incorrect. Israel already obtains about 1/3 of its water from desalination. Israel is the world leader is desalination technology and has the largest desalination plants on Earth. Do you really think if it was all about water, Israel wouldn't rather just build some more desalination plants rather than pouring billions and billions into endless military operations as well as facing continued international criticism?

Water may be a primary issue for the Palestinians, but it is not for Israel, which has the technology and money to get what they need from the Mediterranean sea, if it comes down to it.

Israel controls the West Bank completely for security. This is the area from which they were attacked, from which suicide bombers entered the country until recently (that has since been stopped by the defense barrier). Israel would like nothing more than to have some over sovereign power with the capability to stop terrorism and arms smuggling take over control of the West Bank. Unfortunately, the Palestinian authority is incapable of doing that, it is too corrupt and incompetent.

[bush_cheney2004]

You're right I haven't been living with years of rocket attacks, but as an outsider looking at the situation you can understand how it may be difficult to justify such force as retaliation.

No, it is precisely because I am an outsider that such force is recognized as appropriate in the face of other failed measures.

Have you lived in the years of rocket attacks?

I have never been attacked by a rocket. In fact, my kind of "rocket attacks" would get far more attention. LOL!

If so then your opinion is more valued then mine, if not then I do believe I am entitled to say what I think...don't call it a sermon because you don't like my opinion. That's cool I didn't plan on pleasing everyone with it anyway.

My opinion is as valid as yours...and my opinion is that you (and many others) offer up judgements and sermons to Israel while not having to live under the same circumstances. Accordingly, I encourage Caledonia to give Canadians (or Americans) some practical experience.

Edited May 29, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Argus]

Purely your opinion and incorrect. Israel already obtains about 1/3 of its water from desalination. Israel is the world leader is desalination technology and has the largest desalination plants on Earth. Do you really think if it was all about water, Israel wouldn't rather just build some more desalination plants rather than pouring billions and billions into endless military operations as well as facing continued international criticism?

I would say part of it has to do with water. Part of it has to do with the fact Israel proper is not a very large territory for the number of people currently living there. But I think that generations of endless violence between them and the surrounding Arabs have left your average Israeli with something less than a sense of care and fair play towards their fellow residents of the middle east.

I don't know that we've ever had a people who have lived under such a close threat for so long as Israel. I mean - ever. It's a neverending threat, where they live, where they shop, wherever they go, be it the beach or to a pizza shop, security concerns are never far away. They are surrounded by a seething mass of hatred, and people are always frantically trying to find a chink in Israel's wall, to fly over it, dig under it, swim around it, bore through it, all so they can get at Israeli civilians and kill as many as possible before dying themselves.

What does that do to the mentality, the psyche of a people over time? Are Israelis hard-nosed and filled with hate for Arabs who live around them? Wouldn't you be?

And yes, you'll now tell me why Palestinians also have every right to hate Israelis, and there is some truth to that. But the plight of the Palestinians owes more to Arab leaders than to Israelis. It's Arab leaders who perpetuated and extended the violence, and who continue to refuse any accomodation, and it's Arab governments who have most used and abused the "palestinians" for their own political purposes. Does anyone really think Arab governments, for all their blustering and UN resolutions and funding of terrorists really give a shit about what happens to Palestinians?

[Oleg Bach]

OLEG BACH INCORPORATED - is now in buisness. I have a rent a friend company _ I will be Israels new best friend..but you gotta pay me _ Okay?

[DogOnPorch]

It's a sewer...

[dre]

Purely your opinion and incorrect. Israel already obtains about 1/3 of its water from desalination. Israel is the world leader is desalination technology and has the largest desalination plants on Earth. Do you really think if it was all about water, Israel wouldn't rather just build some more desalination plants rather than pouring billions and billions into endless military operations as well as facing continued international criticism?

Water may be a primary issue for the Palestinians, but it is not for Israel, which has the technology and money to get what they need from the Mediterranean sea, if it comes down to it.

Israel controls the West Bank completely for security. This is the area from which they were attacked, from which suicide bombers entered the country until recently (that has since been stopped by the defense barrier). Israel would like nothing more than to have some over sovereign power with the capability to stop terrorism and arms smuggling take over control of the West Bank. Unfortunately, the Palestinian authority is incapable of doing that, it is too corrupt and incompetent.

No sorry youre just absolutely wrong. Israel gets about 1/3 of its drinking water from the west bank, and actually DAMAGES its own security by building settlements there as opposed to enhancing it. Its major settlements are build right around riparian points on the mountain aquifier.

They are also the only country in history to put its water works department in control of the military, and in the west bank they enforce strict quotas on the palestinians who are allowed to used only about 1/5 as much water as an Israeli. And the water is even more important to Israel because the water levels in the Sea of Galilea are dropping.

Ariel Sharon described giving up control of the mountain aquifiers as "accepting death".

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/watermap1.html

The Mountain Aquifer, from which Israel draws over a third of its fresh water resources, has 83% of its recharge area located in the West Bank.[16] The portion of the Coastal Aquifer that lies in the Gaza Strip has been overexploited for many years, and its water —Gaza's only significant source of fresh water— has become brackish and of limited use due to infiltration of sea water.

Israel is the world leader is desalination technology and has the largest desalination plants on Earth. Do you really think if it was all about water, Israel wouldn't rather just build some more desalination plants

Yes Israel is also a world leader in water conservation for a reason... water is a vital national security issue, and its the issue the precipitated this entire conflict. Israel has the misfortune of being downstream from various countries that dont like them very much in a very dry region. Its been bombing water diversion projects and fighting for control of the river Jordans headwaters since before it was even officially a country.

In 2003 they threatened war with Lebanon because the lebanese were pumping water out of their own lake...

The Middle East is in the grip of severe drought. Israel's farmers

are so highly dependant on irrigation that they require more than half

of the 1.55 billion cubic metres of water that is used annually within

Israel's borders and the Occupied Territories.

To cope, Israel has ordered 500,000 cubic metres per annum from Turkey

for the next 10 years. It also continues to unfairly exploit the main Palestinian

aquifer.

In the last six months, tension has increased due to the Lebanese government's

insistence that it has the right to use some of the water from Wazzani

River. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has said it would be a cause

for war.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/26297

Of course people like you and others are obsessed with the religion and terrorism angle so you ignore the actual underlying causes of the struggle there, but they were well known. In fact if you look at the Johnstone plan which is one of the first American attempts to resolve the conflict it centered almost completely around desalination and providing ISrael with other options to supply its water.

[bush_cheney2004]

....In fact if you look at the Johnstone plan which is one of the first American attempts to resolve the conflict it centered almost completely around desalination and providing ISrael with other options to supply its water.

Of course...if it's an American plan it must be good! LOL!

[williat]

My opinion is as valid as yours...and my opinion is that you (and many others) offer up judgements and sermons to Israel while not having to live under the same circumstances. Accordingly, I encourage Caledonia to give Canadians (or Americans) some practical experience.

Well this is just boring now, if we're not going to add anything really relevant. My only response to this must then be; Well my opinion is that your opinion is unfounded as well because you have never lived under the conditions either.

I do wonder though what would happen if Caledonia starting firing rockets at Hamilton?

[Topaz]

Where do Israel's enemies get their weapons? The weapon fairy?

Hey, I know the US is the large military supplier, the carlyle group, owns quite a few of them, but Russian also makes weapons and I would think China gotta be in there.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well this is just boring now, if we're not going to add anything really relevant. My only response to this must then be; Well my opinion is that your opinion is unfounded as well because you have never lived under the conditions either.

Correct, but the difference is that I know exactly how I would respond while you don't.

I do wonder though what would happen if Caledonia starting firing rockets at Hamilton?

Well, we can be sure that some members here would blame Canada for oppression and unsettled land claims. But a more interesting aspect would be the lack of escalation compared to long established tension and conflict for Israel. The OPP does not presently have to deal with such a problem, mostly because the Grand River bands are effectively subjugated and lack outside agitation from third parties.

Edited May 29, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

I would say part of it has to do with water. Part of it has to do with the fact Israel proper is not a very large territory for the number of people currently living there. But I think that generations of endless violence between them and the surrounding Arabs have left your average Israeli with something less than a sense of care and fair play towards their fellow residents of the middle east.

I don't know that we've ever had a people who have lived under such a close threat for so long as Israel. I mean - ever. It's a neverending threat, where they live, where they shop, wherever they go, be it the beach or to a pizza shop, security concerns are never far away. They are surrounded by a seething mass of hatred, and people are always frantically trying to find a chink in Israel's wall, to fly over it, dig under it, swim around it, bore through it, all so they can get at Israeli civilians and kill as many as possible before dying themselves.

What does that do to the mentality, the psyche of a people over time? Are Israelis hard-nosed and filled with hate for Arabs who live around them? Wouldn't you be?

Of course I would be. Personally, I am continually amazed that Israel shows the level of restraint it does. Put the US into the same situation and their "neighbors" would have been glass parking lots by now.

And yes, you'll now tell me why Palestinians also have every right to hate Israelis, and there is some truth to that.

Why would I tell you that? If Palestinians should hate anyone it's the Jordanian and Egyptian leaders who lied to them, used their lands to mount an offensive against Israel from, and then abandoned them to remain nationless purely so they could serve as a political tool against Israel.

Does anyone really think Arab governments, for all their blustering and UN resolutions and funding of terrorists really give a shit about what happens to Palestinians?

They do care... they have a strongly vested interest in maintaining the worst possible conditions for Palestinians so that Israel continues to get a lot of bad PR around the world.

Oh and regarding the debate of people's opinions being more valid if they have lived under rocket fire... well let me tell you this. I lived for about half a year as a civilian in a war zone, with air raid sirens going off multiple times nightly, my family and I dropping everything and rushing to our bomb shelters each time. We huddled in tiny underground rooms, the doors and windows sealed with duct tape to prevent any possible outside air from coming in in case there was a chemical or biological attack (fortunately that never happened), and wearing gas masks on top of that. A building not far down the street from where I lived was destroyed one night when a scud missile impacted it.

And based on this experience, here's my opinion, a nation's government should take the most direct, swiftest, and strongest possible action in any given situation to guarantee the safety of its citizens. A nation, if it has the capability, should utterly eradicate any foe who would dare to launch weapons against its civilian population, and worry about enemy casualties later or not at all.

Israel is failing in this regard, failing terribly. It is not nearly aggressive enough in defending its people or its lands from rocket and mortar bombardment. It is showing its weakness and lack of resolve to its enemies, and that is why they continue to attack. They know that they can launch rockets into Israel, and 99.9% of the time Israel will offer no response, no counterattack. If instead they knew that every attack would meet with swift and devastating reprisal, they would perhaps think twice.

Edited May 29, 2010 by Bonam

[williat]

Correct, but the difference is that I know exactly how I would respond while you don't.

Well, we can be sure that some members here would blame Canada for oppression and unsettled land claims. But a more interesting aspect would be the lack of escalation compared to long established tension and conflict for Israel. The OPP does not presently have to deal with such a problem, mostly because the Grand River bands are effectively subjugated and lack outside agitation from third parties.

What the hell do you mean, I know exactly how i'd respond...and it wouldn't be by calling in an air strike. So our argument is solely a difference of opinion, telling me I don't know how to respond clearly demonstrates that you're argument is on a weak leg. What i'm trying to say is "WE DON'T KNOW" what we would do as you have pointed out over and over and I agreed with you and that is now how I'm looking at it, I still stand beside the fact that I feel air strikes are an escalation that causes more worse than good. I am also forgoing the argument that Israel continues to build settlements because it is relatively irrelevant to our topic, but take everything into consideration (i.e. people have also mentioned water). I feel you are taking a close minded view and are solely focused on discrediting other people's opinions, I'm not saying that your wrong I'm just saying it appears we have come to a place where we disagree...doesn't mean either one of us is wrong just a difference of opinion

This is sort of the problem with politics today, these so called "Parties of Canada" sit around and argue most of the time, if we don't agree thats fine, I didn't expect everyone would agree with what I was saying, surely as you didn't believe everyone would agree with what you think. But the real question then becomes what can we do? Clearly we have both offered up our opinion but can we find a solution. Do I think peace talks can work? Well that depends, both sides are going to have to smarten up to say the least, Israel has to stop building, Palestine has to deal with their governmental issues and stop the violence. What I also find very foolish is that the US & other Arab (namely Egypt) countries are the ones aiding the peace talks, but should this really be the case, its obvious the US backs Israel and the other Arab nations clearly support Palestine. Personally I'm not sure we're ever going to see peace in that area, essentially the geopolitics/religious views of the area would never allow it.

[bush_cheney2004]

What the hell do you mean, I know exactly how i'd respond...and it wouldn't be by calling in an air strike. So our argument is solely a difference of opinion, telling me I don't know how to respond clearly demonstrates that you're argument is on a weak leg. What i'm trying to say is "WE DON'T KNOW" what we would do as you have pointed out over and over and I agreed with you and that is now how I'm looking at it, I still stand beside the fact that I feel air strikes are an escalation that causes more worse than good.

It's more than just a difference of opinion, it is a difference in venue and context. Israel and Palestine are long past the moment of making a bad first impression. My often used Caledonia rocket scenario is intended as a logical challenge an debating tactic, not real world scenario. I think we can agree that it is not going to happen.

I am also forgoing the argument that Israel continues to build settlements because it is relatively irrelevant to our topic, but take everything into consideration (i.e. people have also mentioned water). I feel you are taking a close minded view and are solely focused on discrediting other people's opinions, I'm not saying that your wrong I'm just saying it appears we have come to a place where we disagree...doesn't mean either one of us is wrong just a difference of opinion

Actually, I am glad you mentioned the settlements because as far as I know, developing home tracts in the desert does not in and of itself kill anybody, yet there are those who say lethal retaliation (e.g. rocket attacks and suicide bombers) is warranted because of a new cement duplex on occupied land.

.... Clearly we have both offered up our opinion but can we find a solution. Do I think peace talks can work? Well that depends, both sides are going to have to smarten up to say the least, Israel has to stop building, Palestine has to deal with their governmental issues and stop the violence. What I also find very foolish is that the US & other Arab (namely Egypt) countries are the ones aiding the peace talks, but should this really be the case, its obvious the US backs Israel and the other Arab nations clearly support Palestine.

Well, it's a bit more complicated than that, with many "Arab countries" wanting it both ways. Egypt, Jordan, and Palestine are more than happy to accept many billion$ in aid from the same American sugar daddy. Palestine has been used and abused for political purposes and is left holding the (empty) bag.

Personally I'm not sure we're ever going to see peace in that area, essentially the geopolitics/religious views of the area would never allow it.

I think we can agree that the matter is really determined by economics...the region will plod on with or without a solution to what has now become a chronic condition. We saw what happened in Lebanon...choose to build or choose to destroy...the world will go on either way and help to keep score.

Edited May 30, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Moonbox]

And now look where this fantastic alternative view of reality is getting us. "Scared", really, with all those A-bombs, C-bombs, armed to the brink of the teeth and occupying the territory? It's ridiculous to the extent of not being funny, as every single aggressor in history have used that funny pretext of "being scared".

That's easily the dumbest thing you've ever said on the issue Myata. Just because you're well-armed doesn't mean you're not scared, especially when we're talking about suicide bombings and random rocket attacks. It's not 'funny pretext'.

I'm not trying to 'justify' either side's actions. We've been over this a hundred times before but both sides have to WANT peace for the process to be anything less than a joke. You could certainly make the argument that Israel doesn't want peace but at the same time you'd have to admit that the other side has ZEEERO interest in the peace process, especially considering they've endlessly STATED as such.

This is where you're so-called unbiased approach to the argument gets HILARIOUS. Your focus and blame has been undeniably on Israel and its supporters, with little to no attention to the fact that Israel's opponents are STILL calling for its utter destruction, regardless of whether there's been settlement encroachment.

[myata]

That's easily the dumbest thing you've ever said on the issue Myata. Just because you're well-armed doesn't mean you're not scared, especially when we're talking about suicide bombings and random rocket attacks. It's not 'funny pretext'.

Aside from handing gratuitous evaluations; maybe you ever wondered what people whose land is taken away daily by those "well armed" shoud feel, instead of being scared? Perhaps, love and eternal gratitude?

On a serious note, what's telling here is that fear of armed to the teath aggressor somehow supposed to take precedence over that of those they persecute. Try to think, in what logical system things usually work that way?

You could certainly make the argument that Israel doesn't want peace but at the same time you'd have to admit that the other side has ZEEERO interest in the peace process, especially considering they've endlessly STATED as such.

That Israeli government of the day does not want peace is obvious from their policy of accelerated settement building which is nothing short of direct, blatant in the face of the world that condemns it, aggression. But you have to be more careful about "the other side", as things stand NOW. Who exactly are "THEY", what exactly did they state and much more importantly, what they did they DO to justify your statement? Unless as per noble tradition, you'd want to equate words with act?

To preempt potential questions, please note that I do not suggest in any way that the other side is blameless. Only request current evidence of that statement, that is as of current, still missing.

This is where you're so-called unbiased approach to the argument gets HILARIOUS. Your focus and blame has been undeniably on Israel and its supporters, with little to no attention to the fact that Israel's opponents are STILL calling for its utter destruction, regardless of whether there's been settlement encroachment.

But I said so many times over that any act of aggression has to be condemned and acted upon, regardless by which side and whose friends it happen to be. What you fail to notice it so consistently is entirely your problem, and I really can have no remedy for this difficult case.

[Moonbox]

Aside from handing gratuitous evaluations; maybe you ever wondered what people whose land is taken away daily by those "well armed" shoud feel, instead of being scared? Perhaps, love and eternal gratitude?

Well there's an interesting notion and one worth investigating. Whose land is it? Obviously the inhabitants of the land back in the 1940's have some claim to it, but then so too wouldn't the people born and raised there who've lived there for 60 years?

It's an absolutely useless argument at this point because it does nothing to move the peace process forward and instead holds everyone back in the past.

On a serious note, what's telling here is that fear of armed to the teath aggressor somehow supposed to take precedence over that of those they persecute. Try to think, in what logical system things usually work that way?

Don't try to get into 'logic' Myata because that's generally where your arguments start to crumble. Why are we even talking about whose fear takes 'precedence'? That doesn't make sense in the first place. The fact of the matter is that Israel is surrounded by enemies. It has a long history of its neighbours attacking it and it DOES get struck by suicide bombers and rocket attacks. This is enough to make them fearful. It makes ABSOLUTELY no difference to the people of Israel that Arabs in the area are also scared and I have no idea why you would think it should.

That Israeli government of the day does not want peace is obvious from their policy of accelerated settement building which is nothing short of direct, blatant in the face of the world that condemns it, aggression. But you have to be more careful about "the other side", as things stand NOW. Who exactly are "THEY", what exactly did they state and much more importantly, what they did they DO to justify your statement? Unless as per noble tradition, you'd want to equate words with act?

That's really the point isn't it? Who ARE we talking about in respect to the 'other side'. In that I'd say it's the cowards who hide behind the honest people of Palestine and encourage violence and violent rhetoric against Israel at all costs. Those are the only people that MATTER when it comes to the peace process and unfortunately it's rather hard to bring them to the table. We're not talking about just Palestine here. We're talking about the entire angry militant Arab world.

But I said so many times over that any act of aggression has to be condemned and acted upon, regardless by which side and whose friends it happen to be. What you fail to notice it so consistently is entirely your problem, and I really can have no remedy for this difficult case.

Israel is constantly being condemned. Europe is condemning them. The Arab world condemns them. The UN condemns them. Unfortunately toothless condemnation by international bureaucrats matters little to either side. What sort of 'action' do you suggest? Sending a UN military mission? Sanctions against Israel (in which case you'd have to sanction most of the middle east as well)?

It's not going to happen. Israel and Palestine have to figure this out themselves.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Moonbox

[myata]

Don't try to get into 'logic' Myata because that's generally where your arguments start to crumble. Why are we even talking about whose fear takes 'precedence'? That doesn't make sense in the first place.

We wouldn't be talking about it if we didn't selectively apply that right to feel threatened based on our ideological preferences. I had to go all the back to this statement:

It's the responsibility of the 'innocents' you speak of to curb their militants. The instigators you speak of don't operate in a vacuum. They need places to hide, funding and support from the 'innocents' that get 'dragged' into the conflict.

Unfortunately, religious leaders and fanatics have a really easy time brainwashing populations who've endured literally centuries of religious indoctrination.

It further complicates matters that a lot of the leadership and funding come from outside the area in the first place.

No, until Palestine and the surrounding area rejects violence and violent rhetoric as a whole, Isreal is going to continue feeling scared and lashing out. It's natural and instinctive.

which said a lot about responsibilities of one side, but nothing about responsibility of the other side to stop their aggressive acts in the form of open anabated landgrab. That's where your argument crumbles, because you seem to be incapable of seeing the reality as it is, without ideological distortions.

The fact of the matter is that Israel is surrounded by enemies. It has a long history of its neighbours attacking it and it DOES get struck by suicide bombers and rocket attacks. This is enough to make them fearful. It makes ABSOLUTELY no difference to the people of Israel that Arabs in the area are also scared and I have no idea why you would think it should.

It's not like Israel is an innocent holy agnes in this affair is it? It itself executed atrocious acts that would have people rightfully fear for their property, their land, their future and their lives. But you only seem to notice only one side of the picture, appreciate fear based on ethnicity of the human being that experiences it.

That's really the point isn't it? Who ARE we talking about in respect to the 'other side'. In that I'd say it's the cowards who hide behind the honest people of Palestine and encourage violence and violent rhetoric against Israel at all costs. Those are the only people that MATTER when it comes to the peace process and unfortunately it's rather hard to bring them to the table. We're not talking about just Palestine here. We're talking about the entire angry militant Arab world.

Rethorics wouldn't count as replacement of factual evidence though.

Israel is constantly being condemned. Europe is condemning them. The Arab world condemns them. The UN condemns them. Unfortunately toothless condemnation by international bureaucrats matters little to either side. What sort of 'action' do you suggest? Sending a UN military mission? Sanctions against Israel (in which case you'd have to sanction most of the middle east as well)?

That's another wrong question triggering obviously wrong answer. How about changing the focus from "who is being condemn" to "what to condemn for"? That way only the parties offending peace agenda will be condemned (and indeed maybe even sanctioned, if the need be). Which would give them clear and direct incentive to change their act. Not like the current "see no evil - from mine" approach.

It's not going to happen. Israel and Palestine have to figure this out themselves.

It's nothing much to do with them though. We have to figure out whether we will act based on objective facts and principles, or based on proximities and associations of the moment. The latter road could get us far indeed.. where we could barely recognise ourselves anymore.

[Moonbox]

We wouldn't be talking about it if we didn't selectively apply that right to feel threatened based on our ideological preferences. I had to go all the back to this statement:

What are you even talking about??? Both sides have a right to feel threatened. One side, however, is in a position to act against and neutralize threats against it to some extent. One thing that you might REALLY want to investigate is the reality of the situation in regards to the intents of each side.

One side has made it clear that its intention/goal is the destruction of the state of Israel. That's their intention, yet they lack the means to make it so.

The other side clearly has the means to wipe the other off the map, yet does not do so, which would suggest some restraint on their part and at least respect for the notion of peace.

These are facts and you only need to do about 30 seconds of research to confirm this. There's nothing idealogical about it.

which said a lot about responsibilities of one side, but nothing about responsibility of the other side to stop their aggressive acts in the form of open anabated landgrab. That's where your argument crumbles, because you seem to be incapable of seeing the reality as it is, without ideological distortions.

The idealogical distortions hold on both sides. Israel annexed territories like East Jerusalem something like 40 years ago after they were pre-emptively invaded. I won't argue that international law forbids this, but I wonder what it would have said about the invasions themselves?

At this point there are hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers in some of these territories (who've been living there for many years now) and in any realistic and logical world you'd have to give Israel a good reason to withdraw and resettle those people.

Launching an invasion (and subsequently getting your ass handed to you) and then bitching about lost territories after the fact is pretty ironic I think. What makes it even more contemptible is the righteous indignation and demands the Arab world places on Israel while at the same time stubbornly refusing ANY notion of long-term peace and co-existence with them.

It's not like Israel is an innocent holy agnes in this affair is it? It itself executed atrocious acts that would have people rightfully fear for their property, their land, their future and their lives. But you only seem to notice only one side of the picture, appreciate fear based on ethnicity of the human being that experiences it.

Myata we've been over this about a hundred times. I don't think Israel is innocent in any way. I don't think they believe in the peace process there and a lot of what they do is just sand in the Arab world's eye. I simply take issue with people like you who've decided that Israel is the instigator and the main source of blame in a conflict when for 50 years the militant Arab world has done nothing but threaten and inflict violence on Israel and never even entertained the idea of long term peace.

One final thing I'll mention is how the Arab world will point towards Israeli breaches of 'international law' when the majority of Arab nations in the area have no respect for human rights, freedom or international law in the first place.

If we're going to get into 'international law', let's take a broader view of things and investigate the idea that realistically there's hardly an Arab state in the area that could be held to the same standards that you and people like you hold Israel to.

[William Ashley]

I don't see a problem with Canada having very close ties with Israel...rather I see it as a good thing. That doesn't mean to say that Israel is never wrong, and never deserves criticism, but in my view, they're on the 'right' side of things overall.

Harper appears more or less a zionist, I am pretty sure this ain'tt netandyahoo's first trip to Canada - I recall him being in montreal a few years back.

Edited June 6, 2010 by William Ashley

[Smallc]

Harper appears more or less a zionist, I am pretty sure this ain'tt netandyahoo's first trip to Canada - I recall him being in montreal a few years back.

It was his first trip as Prime Minister.

Edited June 6, 2010 by Smallc

[William Ashley]

It was his first trip as Prime Minister.

Guess not being at home with the phone might be good the last week or so.

[dre]

What are you even talking about??? Both sides have a right to feel threatened. One side, however, is in a position to act against and neutralize threats against it to some extent. One thing that you might REALLY want to investigate is the reality of the situation in regards to the intents of each side.

One side has made it clear that its intention/goal is the destruction of the state of Israel. That's their intention, yet they lack the means to make it so.

The other side clearly has the means to wipe the other off the map, yet does not do so, which would suggest some restraint on their part and at least respect for the notion of peace.

These are facts and you only need to do about 30 seconds of research to confirm this. There's nothing idealogical about it.

The idealogical distortions hold on both sides. Israel annexed territories like East Jerusalem something like 40 years ago after they were pre-emptively invaded. I won't argue that international law forbids this, but I wonder what it would have said about the invasions themselves?

At this point there are hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers in some of these territories (who've been living there for many years now) and in any realistic and logical world you'd have to give Israel a good reason to withdraw and resettle those people.

Launching an invasion (and subsequently getting your ass handed to you) and then bitching about lost territories after the fact is pretty ironic I think. What makes it even more contemptible is the righteous indignation and demands the Arab world places on Israel while at the same time stubbornly refusing ANY notion of long-term peace and co-existence with them.

Myata we've been over this about a hundred times. I don't think Israel is innocent in any way. I don't think they believe in the peace process there and a lot of what they do is just sand in the Arab world's eye. I simply take issue with people like you who've decided that Israel is the instigator and the main source of blame in a conflict when for 50 years the militant Arab world has done nothing but threaten and inflict violence on Israel and never even entertained the idea of long term peace.

One final thing I'll mention is how the Arab world will point towards Israeli breaches of 'international law' when the majority of Arab nations in the area have no respect for human rights, freedom or international law in the first place.

If we're going to get into 'international law', let's take a broader view of things and investigate the idea that realistically there's hardly an Arab state in the area that could be held to the same standards that you and people like you hold Israel to.

One final thing I'll mention is how the Arab world will point towards Israeli breaches of 'international law' when the majority of Arab nations in the area have no respect for human rights, freedom or international law in the first place.

Its true.

And thats exactly why the current "world order" is such and gross and abysmal failure. The major world powers and the UNSC have made all kinds of rules but refuse to enforce them when there isnt a direct self interest. And the VETO members have consistantly used their vetos to thwart justice.

Imagine if the police in your neighborhood only enforced the law when they felt like it or when they had a direct personal interest, and only enforced it against their enemies not their friends. Wouldnt work very well would it?

[bush_cheney2004]

...Imagine if the police in your neighborhood only enforced the law when they felt like it or when they had a direct personal interest, and only enforced it against their enemies not their friends. Wouldnt work very well would it?

...and imagine further that the citizens in the neighborhood helped the police to do this. Would work out even better now, wouldn't it?

[myata]

What are you even talking about??? Both sides have a right to feel threatened. One side, however, is in a position to act against and neutralize threats against it to some extent.

What makes you think that the other side would not be in such "position" as well? With the means available to it?

One side has made it clear that its intention/goal is the destruction of the state of Israel. That's their intention, yet they lack the means to make it so.

You mean that the intention or goal of Israel's ever ongoing landgrab is peace and eternal friendship?

The other side clearly has the means to wipe the other off the map, yet does not do so, which would suggest some restraint on their part and at least respect for the notion of peace.

How exactly would one "wipe off the map" four million people? Perhaps forcing them from their lands by direct expropriation or by making thier life impossible could be a way? Some "respect for peace" for sure. It's all in the words, isn't it?

These are facts and you only need to do about 30 seconds of research to confirm this. There's nothing idealogical about it.

Nope, still no referenced facts as requested here, as far I can see.

At this point there are hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers in some of these territories (who've been living there for many years now) and in any realistic and logical world you'd have to give Israel a good reason to withdraw and resettle those people.

Would it be like, if you just wait long enough pretending no wrong, then there isn't anything wrong and you can go on claiming the status of peaceful angelity, right? Full and complete dispositon to peace, one minute after one's land appropriation plans have been accopmlished. How novel! And how believable indeed.

Launching an invasion (and subsequently getting your ass handed to you) and then bitching about lost territories after the fact is pretty ironic I think. What makes it even more contemptible is the righteous indignation and demands the Arab world places on Israel while at the same time stubbornly refusing ANY notion of long-term peace and co-existence with them.

It's not like it was an invasion of an unquestionnably established sovereign country, if you read the historty. Anyways, what is it you want to say? What force will determine the right? I agree that's one way to see it and it will happen eventually, although nothing guarantees that it'll happen in the way you see it. If we can't think of anything better than that, I'd suggest not getting mixed up in the affair and watching it from sidelines. Less chance of getting undesirable blowbacks. But if we want to play a meaningful role in advancing peace, I just can't see how it can be achieved without being able to see the objective picture.

Myata we've been over this about a hundred times. I don't think Israel is innocent in any way. I don't think they believe in the peace process there and a lot of what they do is just sand in the Arab world's eye. I simply take issue with people like you who've decided that Israel is the instigator and the main source of blame in a conflict when for 50 years the militant Arab world has done nothing but threaten and inflict violence on Israel and never even entertained the idea of long term peace.

No it's not what I'm saying at all, no matter why you keep repeating it over and again. I may have views on the causes of this conflict but it's not relevant to the cause of its resolution in this current reality. What I'm saying about Canada's position that it'll be either objective and based on principle or it wouldn't be advancing the cause of peace. As simple as that.

If we're going to get into 'international law', let's take a broader view of things and investigate the idea that realistically there's hardly an Arab state in the area that could be held to the same standards that you and people like you hold Israel to.

You lost me here, sorry. You mean that if I think that my "standards" are better than those of my neigbours it would justify my occupying and appropriating their land? I haven't heard of such interpretation of international law.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's not like it was an invasion of an unquestionnably established sovereign country, if you read the historty.

Hmmmmm...now let's see...what would be an example of "an unquestionably established country"? And how was it established? And why did this unquestionably establish country support the "establishment" of Israel? And what is a "Balfour Declaration"?

No it's not what I'm saying at all, no matter why you keep repeating it over and again. I may have views on the causes of this conflict but it's not relevant to the cause of its resolution in this current reality. What I'm saying about Canada's position that it'll be either objective and based on principle or it wouldn't be advancing the cause of peace. As simple as that.

No worries...Canada's position is already compromised.

You lost me here, sorry. You mean that if I think that my "standards" are better than those of my neigbours it would justify my occupying and appropriating their land? I haven't heard of such interpretation of international law.

See "Grand River Land Claims"

Edited June 6, 2010 by bush_cheney2004