origins of Modern Israel

[M.Dancer]

You said guerilla fighters were putting civilians in harms way by being among them. I want you to state what is the source of that harm the the guerillas are bringing down upon them. Who's dropping the bombs and firing the missiles?

Once again someone tries to apologise for terrorist war crimes. Sweet.

If you're going to make those kind of accusations, please back it up. In what way am I 'apologizing' for terrorism?

I want you to state what is the source of that harm the the guerillas are bringing down upon them.

You are shifting the onus of responsibilty away from the responsible.

[M.Dancer]

If you're going to make those kind of accusations, please back it up. In what way am I 'apologizing' for terrorism?

[

I didn't say you were apologising for terrorism....

......in this post

[Figleaf]

You said guerilla fighters were putting civilians in harms way by being among them. I want you to state what is the source of that harm the the guerillas are bringing down upon them. Who's dropping the bombs and firing the missiles?

Once again someone tries to apologise for terrorist war crimes. Sweet.

If you're going to make those kind of accusations, please back it up. In what way am I 'apologizing' for terrorism?

I want you to state what is the source of that harm the the guerillas are bringing down upon them.

You are shifting the onus of responsibilty away from the responsible.

What I am actually doing is attempting to parse the implicit assumptions Rue implants in his arguments about where responsibility lies. Unfortunately, you and he both object to such an examination of the assumptions because you are motivated by an emotional interest in the monolithic solidity of his arguments. (Hence your frequent malicious imputations of anti-semitism.)

[M.Dancer]

I object to it because it is illogical. There's a reason the articles are worded that way, to prevent belligerents from using civilians to hide behend as they attack and then whining about how nasty the enemy is who came anyway.......

As I said, with your fuzzy thinking, who needs reactive armour? Just duck tape some Gaza Urchins to your Toyota...no one will dare stop you as you blow yourselves up amonst the Jews.

[M.Dancer]

(Hence your frequent malicious imputations of anti-semitism.)

Isn't that the same argument the holocaust deniers use...they are merely examining the assumptions.....

[Figleaf]

Isn't that the same argument the holocaust deniers use...they are merely examining the assumptions.....

It's the same argument anyone uses when they are examining assumptions -- Holocaust deniers, theologians, scientists, lawyers, Talmudic scholars, journalists, you name it.

[colliver19]

This is a strange question:

why is it most Europeans (as I am) are pro-Arab whilst most North Americans are pro-Israeli?

I agree that both Arabs and Israelis need to compromise, but I feel Israel is just too heavy handed. No wonder Arabs feel discontented.

[jbg]

This is a strange question:

why is it most Europeans (as I am) are pro-Arab whilst most North Americans are pro-Israeli?

I suppose part of the reason is that you share a land mass with the Arabs and we don't. That puts Continental Europeans in a more dangerous position.

The less charitable explanation is that your love-hate affair with the Jews ended as a definite "hate affair" from roughly November 9, 1938 to May 1945. You Europeans very nearly succeeded in putting the Jewish people out of business. A surge of remorse led to a temporary period of support for Israel, However, the age-old hatred of the Jews re-emerged shortly, as the French Foreign Minister once implied in referring to Israel as a "sh*t little nation".

By contrast, Canada, the United States and Australia were countries formed without official religions, and largely, though not totally free of the religious hatreds of their source nations. This is not a surprise since many of the people coming here came to get away from the madness and lunacy of Europe. Thus, the Jews were valued for their contributions to societies, which have always been disproportionate to their numbers.

I agree that both Arabs and Israelis need to compromise, but I feel Israel is just too heavy handed. No wonder Arabs feel discontented.

Israel needs to survive. If it loses a war, it is finished. Since the Arabs are unwilling or unable, in Arabic, to recognize a smaller Israel and welcome it to the region, Israel's "compromise" is a death sentence for it.

[Figleaf]

This is a strange question:

why is it most Europeans (as I am) are pro-Arab whilst most North Americans are pro-Israeli?

I suppose part of the reason is that you share a land mass with the Arabs and we don't. That puts Continental Europeans in a more dangerous position....

I think it's more likely because Europeans have a clearer grasp of middle east history and more honest media.

Israel needs to survive. If it loses a war, it is finished.

Israel is in no existential danger now, and has faced only two really dangerous trials: 1948 and 1973.

[jbg]

I think it's more likely because Europeans have a clearer grasp of middle east history and more honest media.

And does this supposedly clear grasp of ME history include the fact that from Day 1 Israel has been subjected to war and terror? Or the fact that the term "Palestinian" was of extremely recent vintage?

Israel is in no existential danger now, and has faced only two really dangerous trials: 1948 and 1973.

Would you guarantee its safety with your life?

[Figleaf]

I think it's more likely because Europeans have a clearer grasp of middle east history and more honest media.

And does this supposedly clear grasp of ME history include the fact that from Day 1 Israel has been subjected to war and terror?

I'm sure it does. But where it differs is that it acknowledges that all this war and terror come from the dispossession and oppression of an innocent population of Palestinians on whom the world foisted an unwanted interloper-state.

Or the fact that the term "Palestinian" was of extremely recent vintage?

Based on that comment, I guess some of Israel's apologists can't grasp the notion that resorting to irrelevant arguments merely reveals that they don't have valid ones.

Israel is in no existential danger now, and has faced only two really dangerous trials: 1948 and 1973.

Would you guarantee its safety with your life?

Absurd question. We're not discussing 'safety', we're discussing survival.

[jbg]

Some discussions rapidly become pointless.

What about the foisting, on the Tibetans, of unwanted Chinese? Do the Tibetans engage in constant, UN-funded terror?

[Figleaf]

What about the foisting, on the Tibetans, of unwanted Chinese? Do the Tibetans engage in constant, UN-funded terror?

????

You're right. Some discussions rapidly become pointless, especially when you inject incomprehensible non sequiturs.

[geoffrey]

I'm sure it does. But where it differs is that it acknowledges that all this war and terror come from the dispossession and oppression of an innocent population of Palestinians on whom the world foisted an unwanted interloper-state.

The population of the Palestinians is mostly not innocent, most openly support and voted to elect a government with the sole purpose of destroying Israel. When you elect a terrorist group to power, my sympathy for you shrinks sizeably.

Israel needs to act civilized and attack only the terrorists... but when most Palestinians are terrorists I really struggle to comprehend how easy this is going to be.

--

Figleaf, do you propose that Israel ceases to exist, or do you subscribe to a two-state solution?

[Figleaf]

The population of the Palestinians is mostly not innocent, most openly support and voted to elect a government with the sole purpose of destroying Israel.

Fantastical falsehoods are not going to improve things.

First, the imposition of Israel was done before Hamas even existed. Second, the destruction of Israel is obviously not the 'sole purpose' of Hamas, and the evidence of that is their extensive social support efforts in the occupied territories. Third, it's totally mistaken to conclude that Palestinians voted for Hamas hoping it would destroy Israel (which would obviously be a pipe-dream).

Figleaf, do you propose that Israel ceases to exist, or do you subscribe to a two-state solution?

Two-state, of course.

[myata]

FYI: regarding Israel's intentions (Israel approves new West bank settlement: BBC story). Reminds me of the late Oslo accord in 8 years of which population of the settlements grew by several hundred thousands. Looks like peace talk is coming from one end of the mouth while land grabs continue from the other.

[Rue]

FYI: regarding Israel's intentions (Israel approves new West bank settlement: BBC story). Reminds me of the late Oslo accord in 8 years of which population of the settlements grew by several hundred thousands. Looks like peace talk is coming from one end of the mouth while land grabs continue from the other.

This used to be a military post of the IDF. They used to farm the area around their post. Then 35 Yeshiva students preparing for service in the Israeli Army lived there in a bunch of trailers. Its situated in the Jordan Valley. Now it appeats 40 settlers removed from a settlement in Gaza will live there.

The bottom line is its 40 people. In the whole scheme of things it is a minor annoyance. The problem is it is in direct contradiction of a promise Israel made to the U.S. it would not set up any more settlements.

It also certainly aggravates the over-all peace agreement of Oslo.

I have stated all along that as part of a final peace, Israel will move all Israelis out of the West Bank. There's about 70,000 settlers that will have to be moved and compensated for and that will happen.

What Israel is now trying to do is find a way to create a border it thinks it can defend and it feels the Jordan Valley is needed for its defence.

I personally think that the cold reality is this-if Israel wants peace, it has to give the entire West Bank back. This settlement is 10 kilometeres into the West Bank. It can be justified right now as a security buffer post but it will be yet another obstacle to peace int he over-all negotiations.

Interestingly while Peace Now and the majority of the Israeli press have harshly criticized it, the Arab League and Jordan and the PLO and for that matter Hamas, do not find it to be a priority.

For me I believe its a stupid move and not adviseable and not justifiable for defence reasons. I am against it and I am confident before this is all over it is just a bluff move by Olmert.

Myata I can not support it and you know I am a strong defender of Israel. I personally believe settlements in the West Bank are a major obstacle to a final peace and are not adviseable. I believe the West Bank should become a second Palestinian nation if there is to be a lasting peace. In a recent survey 65% of West Bank settlers said they would leave if they were compensated so that is something.

Interestingly these settlers were promised this post by Sharon before he had his stroke.

Olmert said if he can't arrive at an agreement with Palestinians by 2008, he will unilaterally carve out a map in Jordan and move all the Israelis to the West side of the line he draws.

I personally think it is a bluff as part of negotiations. I think it would not suprise me that Olmert dismantles this post as part of a dramatic display of support for Abbas to make Abbas look like he has the ability to influence Israel. I don't think this has been played out to its final conclusion.

[myata]

Well yes I believe many here are in agreement that recognition of Israel and peace in exchange for return to 1967 borders is the way to go. We only have to wait till people in the region come to the same conclusion.

However I'm not sure that these incidents can be simply written of as "bluff". Building up settlements on the occupied lands is a consitent (and persistent) policy of Israel that did not cease (and even accelerated) during the periods of serious peace negotiations such as Oslo. I do not believe that it contributes to the building of the trust that is already on the very low level and wouldn't automatically assume positive intentions behind it. Maybe "what you see is what you get".

[Jerry J. Fortin]

There will never be peace in the middle east. The Arabs hate each other but all agree that they hate the Jews more. There is no simple solution, especially one from the from the west to be imposed on them. Leave them to their own ends unless you want the world picking sides and having it out to find a "FINAL SOLUTION".

[jbg]

FYI: regarding Israel's intentions (Israel approves new West bank settlement: BBC story). Reminds me of the late Oslo accord in 8 years of which population of the settlements grew by several hundred thousands. Looks like peace talk is coming from one end of the mouth while land grabs continue from the other.

What's missing is the declaration, by Palestinian leaders, in Arabic of the unequivocal recognition of Israel, as called for in the Oslo accords, and the appropriate amendment of the PLO Charter. Neither happened.

[myata]

You mean, absense of such declaration is a proper justification for Israel to grab more of the land they occupy illegally? Building of illegal settlements never ceased no matter what the condition of the affairs was.

For Jerry, I would agree with you 100%, except there's this question of U.S.A. which is the biggest military power of this planent and also happen to unconditionally support one side in this conflict.

[jbg]

You mean, absense of such declaration is a proper justification for Israel to grab more of the land they

Absolutely. The "absence of such declaration" amounts to a continuation of the state of war. If they want the benefits of peace, they have to give peace in return.

[myata]

State of war does not make annexation of territory any more legal. These settlements are illegal under international law (see the article in question), so Israel's actions are illegal war or not.

[jbg]

State of war does not make annexation of territory any more legal. These settlements are illegal under international law (see the article in question), so Israel's actions are illegal war or not.

Are China's activities in Tibet more legal? What about the Janjaweed's in Dharfur?

[Rue]

The bottom line is that when Israel entered into the Oslo Accord with the PLO its intention was to create a two state solution to the peace process and the West Bank would be the basis for the second Palestinian state. Israel since the Oslo Accord, has gone against the spirit of the accord by allowing settlements on the West Bank.

Here is the bottom line. Jordan was illegally created by the British and took 78-85% of Palestine out of the equation by setting up the puppet state of TransJordan.

The West Bank technically was what was left over, after Jordan was created illegally by the British and Israel through war, established the 1949 to 1967 de facto borders of Israel.

The West Bank technically is a stateless entity. The point is though, when Israel signed the Oslo Accord it said they were willing to give it to the PLO to use to create a second Palestinian state in return for the recognition of Israel and the end to the conflict.

Yes Israel can argue it needs safe borders, but let's be real, placing settlers on the West Bank is not about

safety for Israel, its about taking land to try force a larger border for Israel.

I know people in the IDF. They have no interest in having to go into the West Bank to protect settlers. They have enough problems hunting down and preventing terrorists from attacking without having to police disputes between Jewish settlers and non terrorist Paletsinians angered by their presence.

Mubarak of Egypt is about to come and have a summit with Israel. Abbas is on the hot seat and needs Israel's support against Hamas and this settlement is announced. It makes Abbas look bad. It embarasses Mubarak and it alienates those people in Palestinian who would be potential allies of Israel.

Its not a good move even if it is only a settlement of 40 or so and Hamas or the PLO really could care less.

Its optics. Its the politics of optics where appearances and timing are crucial.

Just as Israel has a chance to take the moral high ground and forge an alliance with Abbas and have Mubarak pressure Hamas, it does this and gives Hamas the ammunition it wants.

Look at the timing. Intidada has launched 60 missile attacks into Israel since the cease-fire in Gaza. Hamas sits back snickering that it has nothing to do with Intifada and is obeying the peace treaty while it allows Intifada to deliberately break the treaty.

Israel could have exposed the Intifada-Hamas connection and shown Hamas for what it was. Instead it allows this settlement which embarasses Abbas. gives Hamas ammunition to say Israel is just a land grabbing bunch of liars, and it fuels the b.s. terrorists need to justify their terror.

No Israel has to show a bit more maturity and sophistication and make some hard decisions about the future

and realize any settlements will have to be pulled in any event if and when the two state option comes about, because there is no other choice.

So sorry while I believe Israel has a right to defend itself militarily against terrorists including hunting down and killing terrrorists I believe allowing settlers on the West Bank is a totally different issue and like many people in the IDF I think its ridiculous to ask the IDF to have to try and defend settlements when the best solution to peace is giving the West Bank to the PLO for a second Palestinian nation and forging an economic alliance with it and Jordan.

As for what China or those sob's in Sudan do, Israel can not justify what it does by saying China or Sudan is worse. That is besides the point.

I think polls have shown the majority of Israels agree with the two state solution. As well in a recent survey 63% of West Bank Jewish settlers said they would be willing o go back to Israel if compensated properly for their move. Trying to expand to absorb the Jordan Valley is more of an issue about control of fresh water than anything else.

Israel has to make a bold initiative and believe it can create peace with a second Palestine state as it has relatively speaking with Jordan.

I do believe a Palestinian state on the West Bank as an ally in a common market federation with Israel and Jordan is the key to its survival. It needs to think of creating allies to provide a tangible alternative to Arabs who support Hamas , Intifada and Hezbollah.