Questions for the 'Hurrah for Israel' crowd

Catchme · February 18, 2007

jbg, but you fail tom ention the Palestinians have had to deal with their border shifting, the Israelis keep encroaching so it is not the same thing at all to your likening of the US Can border, a bit of a problematic strawman there, eh!

scribblet · February 18, 2007

Yes, " a few " psychos. As in, occassionally there will probably be more violence, in the same sense as " rampage " shootings in North America. I do not recall hearing coverage on the War In Columbine after the shootings there, so if Palestinians could eliminate suicide bombings as a societal norm, Israel should not be breaking out the bomber planes and cutting off relations every time there is an exception.

Not just suicide bombers, there are car bombs, sniping, and the daily rocket fire into Israel, that has to stop too, not to mention that they could be feeding the people with the money they spend on arms.

To think that suicide bombings are a societal norm is pretty disturbing to say the least.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...rorAttacks.html

here we have it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6372633.stm

US and Israel agree boycott plan

Hamas, the largest group in the proposed Palestinian unity government, refuses to recognise Israel.

Mr Olmert said a Palestinian government that failed to accept conditions laid down by the quartet of the US, EU, Russia and UN "cannot receive recognition and there will not be co-operation with it," Reuters news agency reports.

The quartet has called on the Palestinians to recognise the state of Israel and give up violence against it.

--snip-

After arriving in Israel, Ms Rice said it was an important time to advance the vision of a Palestinian state.

--snip-

Mr Olmert's comments will add to doubts about whether the US will engage with a new Palestinian unity government.

Speaking after talks with Israel's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Ms Rice said now was "an important time to talk about how we advance the vision of two states living side-by-side in peace and in freedom".

But she and Ms Livni both stressed that any new Palestinian coalition government must recognise Israel, renounce violence and accept past peace agreements

Figleaf · February 18, 2007

Unfortunately, you are continuing to say nothing about the shape of the peace.

Peace is peace.

Oh please. You know very well I'm asking about final borders, population settlement, redress payments, water access, and security guarantees and the like. Reciting 'peace is peace' obviously doesn't touch on these points, so let's not pretend otherwise, hm.

Figleaf · February 18, 2007

... Mr Olmert said a Palestinian government that failed to accept conditions laid down by the quartet of the US, EU, Russia and UN "cannot receive recognition and there will not be co-operation with it," Reuters news agency reports. ...The quartet has called on the Palestinians to recognise the state of Israel and give up violence against it....But she and Ms Livni both stressed that any new Palestinian coalition government must recognise Israel, renounce violence and accept past peace agreements

As I read that, what strike me is the inherent double standard it invokes. It demands that the Palestinians renounce their struggle as a PREcondition to talks, rather than as a condition of settlement. The latter is an obvious necessity, but given the history of the conflict, the former seems unfair and impractical.

scribblet · February 18, 2007

... Mr Olmert said a Palestinian government that failed to accept conditions laid down by the quartet of the US, EU, Russia and UN "cannot receive recognition and there will not be co-operation with it," Reuters news agency reports. ...The quartet has called on the Palestinians to recognise the state of Israel and give up violence against it....But she and Ms Livni both stressed that any new Palestinian coalition government must recognise Israel, renounce violence and accept past peace agreements

As I read that, what strike me is the inherent double standard it invokes. It demands that the Palestinians renounce their struggle as a PREcondition to talks, rather than as a condition of settlement. The latter is an obvious necessity, but given the history of the conflict, the former seems unfair and impractical.

It would have to be a pre-condition, how can they start talking while rockets and bombs are flying - not going to happen.

Figleaf · February 18, 2007

... Mr Olmert said a Palestinian government that failed to accept conditions laid down by the quartet of the US, EU, Russia and UN "cannot receive recognition and there will not be co-operation with it," Reuters news agency reports. ...The quartet has called on the Palestinians to recognise the state of Israel and give up violence against it....But she and Ms Livni both stressed that any new Palestinian coalition government must recognise Israel, renounce violence and accept past peace agreements

As I read that, what strike me is the inherent double standard it invokes. It demands that the Palestinians renounce their struggle as a PREcondition to talks, rather than as a condition of settlement. The latter is an obvious necessity, but given the history of the conflict, the former seems unfair and impractical.

It would have to be a pre-condition, how can they start talking while rockets and bombs are flying - not going to happen.

But look, peace negotiations are ABOUT stopping a conflict. You talk to find a way to stop it. If you won't talk until its over, then what you're thinking about is not a peace negotiation. Every conflict ended by talks must, axiomatically, have those talks begin while the conflict remains unsettled.

To say "we won't talk peace until we have peace" is so absurd a formulation that it can only appear disingenuous.

marcinmoka · February 18, 2007

It is a matter of public record that at least SOME Israelis have a overtly stated objective of restoring the ancient borders of Solomon's empire as those of modern Israel.

And some people still long for the days of Stalin, what your point? "Some" denotes a small, undefined minority. Engaging in semantic gymnastics in an attempt to make the wishes of a handful of radical yet powerless dreamers as being representative of worldwide Jewry is well.....without foundation.

If ALL Israel wanted were to be left alone, how do we explain their settlement of West Bank lands?

Strategic geography and demographics. Assure Israel even an iota of security, and the situation would be much different. The same applies to question #3 dealing with Oslo.

Borg · February 18, 2007

Unfortunately, you are continuing to say nothing about the shape of the peace.

Peace is peace.

Oh please. You know very well I'm asking about final borders, population settlement, redress payments, water access, and security guarantees and the like. Reciting 'peace is peace' obviously doesn't touch on these points, so let's not pretend otherwise, hm.

I am sure the Isreali folks will be happy to accept damages for relentless attacks on their people. But in fact I would bet they would just be happy if it would all stop and let those who owe them keep their money. I also believe they would be happy to build from where they sit right now - and allow others to do the same.

You continue to throw red herrings into the mix.

Why don't you tell us how it is going to work? You have had 3 pages of suggestions and yet you continue to pontificate and yet provide nothing of substance. Perhaps you would like to dazzle us with YOUR brilliance?

I suspect no one has changed their opinion of you - have you had a report back yet? ;->

Borg

Figleaf · February 18, 2007

It is a matter of public record that at least SOME Israelis have a overtly stated objective of restoring the ancient borders of Solomon's empire as those of modern Israel.

And some people still long for the days of Stalin, what your point? "Some" denotes a small, undefined minority.

I think the question is what is YOUR point. You initially said: "If Israel wanted to, they could easily expand their borders for they have the military capacity, but all they want is to be left alone to eat their Mozza balls in peace and argue amongst each other about the Torrah"

So why I refer to those Israelis who don't fit your claim, it is in order to refute your claim.

Engaging in semantic gymnastics

Is what your post here seems to be all about.

... in an attempt to make the wishes of a handful of radical yet powerless dreamers as being representative of worldwide Jewry is well.....without foundation.

Fortunate that I didn't do that then, isn't it.

If ALL Israel wanted were to be left alone, how do we explain their settlement of West Bank lands?

Strategic geography and demographics. Assure Israel even an iota of security, and the situation would be much different. The same applies to question #3 dealing with Oslo.

I don't understand. Please explaind.

Figleaf · February 18, 2007

You continue to throw red herrings into the mix.

Do you know what a red herring means? How on Earth can it be a red herring to pursue the initial questions I set out at the start of the thread?

Borg · February 18, 2007

I see you have yet to answer the question - yet again proving my point.

Waiting for you to show us / tell us how it will all come down.

Borg

You continue to throw red herrings into the mix.

Do you know what a red herring means? How on Earth can it be a red herring to pursue the initial questions I set out at the start of the thread?

Catchme · February 18, 2007

It is a matter of public record that at least SOME Israelis have a overtly stated objective of restoring the ancient borders of Solomon's empire as those of modern Israel.

And some people still long for the days of Stalin, what your point? "Some" denotes a small, undefined minority. Engaging in semantic gymnastics in an attempt to make the wishes of a handful of radical yet powerless dreamers as being representative of worldwide Jewry is well.....without foundation.

If ALL Israel wanted were to be left alone, how do we explain their settlement of West Bank lands?

Strategic geography and demographics. Assure Israel even an iota of security, and the situation would be much different. The same applies to question #3 dealing with Oslo.

Strawman that you kicked down with that Stalin analogy.

The recent history of Israel's actions in its expansion well beyond the 1967 borders denotes that, it is neither a security expansion, or without foundation. Nor are we dealing with world wide Jewry in this case, we are dealing only in Israeli parameters. And Israel is founded upon Zionist principles and has long had Zionits governments. Though, I suppose you could say, if you wanted to, that the actual numbers of Israeli Jews that ascribe to the "Greater Israel" is up for debate.

Eretz Israel HaShlema
In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, said that the area of the Jewish State stretches: "From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates." The "Brook of Egypt" may be another lesser waterway about 100 miles East of the Nile. Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the UN Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947: "The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon."

The settler movement Gush Emunim, founded in 1974, replaced the legal term "State of Israel" with the biblical term "Land of Israel" (Eretz Israel), which justified the settlement of the territories in the name of a special alliance between God and the Chosen People. They consider Zionism a process of cosmic redemption. According to the Gush the advent of the messiah would be delayed if the land were returned to non-Jews. Rahavam Ze'evi, the leader of Ihud Leumi (National Union Party), has advocated the "transfer" -- a polite term, in the opinion of some detractors, for forced expulsion of all Palestinians from Greater Israel. The vast majority of the Israelis who go to live in Hebron follow the ideology of "Eretz Israel Hashlema".

Forcing God's Hand explains the popularity of the Christian element of this End Time doctrine. A Tennessean, Cyrus Scofield, popularized the idea of a Free Rapture, a theology originally imported from England less than 200 years ago. The theology holds that Christians must look to the biblical land of the Jews for their salvation; that the land itself is more important to Christians than the message of Christ. Scofield taught that Christ was held hostage until Jews carried out a preordained plan: they were to leave their native lands, including Russia, Europe, Africa and America, and settle in Palestine. They were to eradicate, with the help of Christians, the most sacred Islamic shrine in Jerusalem, a mosque holy to a billion Muslims around the world; and once Christ returned, the Jews must convert to Christianity. His doctrine, called dispensationalism, was encoded into the Scofield Reference Bible.

But by 2005 public sentiment in Israel seemed to have rejected the ideal of an Israel expanded to biblical proportions (Eretz Yisrael Hashleima). Former chief rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau said he had resigned himself to the possibility that realizing Eretz Yisrael Hashlema may not be attainable in this generation. "It is unreasonable to expect too much of one generation," he said. "The curses mentioned in Leviticus and Deuteronomy came true during the Holocaust. That same generation experienced the ingathering of the exiles, fought seven wars and built the Jewish state. Perhaps Eretz Yisrael Hashleima will have to wait."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...ater-israel.htm

Figleaf · February 18, 2007

I see you have yet to answer the question - yet again proving my point.
Waiting for you to show us / tell us how it will all come down.

Borg

I see you have failed to understand the point of this whole exercise or don't remember what thread you are posting on. The thread is about understanding what Israel's supporters think the Palestinians should do and expect -- to inquire into the perceptions they have of the strategy and incentive questions from the other side. In that context, my own views are not really of interest.

But, since you ask, I think the Palestinians should confine their struggle to military and government targets. If they do that, they may begin to shed the 'terrorist' reputation and become more credible, and thus harder to dismiss, on the world stage. They may then be able to convince the US of the justice of their cause and the US may then pressure Israel to give them a just peace.

What I would view as just peace is: Israel to return to the Green Line, the right of return bought out on an individual basis, reparations paid to the new Palestinian (fully sovereign) state, an interim international force to guarantee security of borders, shared jurisdiction of Jerusalem.

scribblet · February 18, 2007

But, since you ask, I think the Palestinians should confine their struggle to military and government targets. If they do that, they may begin to shed the 'terrorist' reputation and become more credible, and thus harder to dismiss, on the world stage. They may then be able to convince the US of the justice of their cause and the US may then pressure Israel to give them a just peace.
What I would view as just peace is: Israel to return to the Green Line, the right of return bought out on an individual basis, reparations paid to the new Palestinian (fully sovereign) state, an interim international force to guarantee security of borders, shared jurisdiction of Jerusalem.

I believe Hamas considers ALL Israelis military targets, they would have to change that opinion and their charters which states: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad"

I can agree with the Green Line if it would bring lasting peace, but Israel does need a buffer zone, unless of course Hamas et al lay down their arms. An interim international force is a good idea. I don't agree that Israel has to pay any reparations.

marcinmoka · February 18, 2007

So why I refer to those Israelis who don't fit your claim, it is in order to refute your claim.

By referring to a tiny minority with almost no say? I like to focus on the majority, not an oddball few.

Is what your post here seems to be all about.

How so?

I don't understand. Please explaind.

I figured anyone with at least a grade 5 geography class under their belt would comprehend this. In geography, there is a field of study called topography. It deals with the earths surface, and various highs and lows, be it valleys or mountain ranges. The west bank is hilly. In fact, up to 1000 meters above sea level. Giving up the West Bank to threatening neighbors would be akin to arming them with budget air power. No longer would they need airplanes to launch bombs because they have mountainous terrain LOOKING DOWN on Israel. This would be perfect for more affordable rocket systems.

Furthermore, due to the fact that Israels neighbors outnumber them in terms of standing armies, this is an ESSENTIAL line of defense, prohibiting easy troop movements.

If you were OUTNUMBERED by hostile forces, would you prefer to be elevated and protected, or open and exposed?

marcinmoka · February 18, 2007

But, since you ask, I think the Palestinians should confine their struggle to military and government targets. If they do that, they may begin to shed the 'terrorist' reputation and become more credible, and thus harder to dismiss, on the world stage.

At least I sorta agree with you on one point. From a pragmatic standpoint, I don't think (as much as I hope at least) that they will renounce ALL attacks, but purposefully targeting civilians only takes away from their cause. Hubris (on both sides) makes people behave strangely.

What many middle eastern nations are in dire need of is public relations firm. Guys with hooks and eyepatches showing off photos of infants dressed as suicide bombers are not ways to woo public opinion.

Figleaf · February 18, 2007

I don't agree that Israel has to pay any reparations.

The buyout of the right of return should be paid by Israel, since it was Israeli forces that drove out the refugees. There should be some reparations paid to the new Palestinian state by the leading world powers of 1948 for their failure to ensure that the Palestinian state came into being as promised.

There may be some argument for reparations between the Palestinian and Israeli sides for damages inflicted subsequent to 1948, but I'd suggest its too complicated to sort out and the settlement should specifically void such claims. (Or rather, the sides should agree that their own governments will be responsible to their own citizens for redressing losses incurred during that time.)

Figleaf · February 18, 2007

So why I refer to those Israelis who don't fit your claim, it is in order to refute your claim.

By referring to a tiny minority with almost no say? I like to focus on the majority, not an oddball few.

Two things: I'm not sure its such a minor fringe as you suggest, and if you meant the mainstream majority you could have mentioned that at the outset.

I figured anyone with at least a grade 5 geography class under their belt would comprehend this.

Blah blah blah.

In geography, there is a field of study called topography. It deals with the earths surface, and various highs and lows, be it valleys or mountain ranges. The west bank is hilly. In fact, up to 1000 meters above sea level. Giving up the West Bank to threatening neighbors would be akin to arming them with budget air power. No longer would they need airplanes to launch bombs because they have mountainous terrain LOOKING DOWN on Israel. This would be perfect for more affordable rocket systems.

So, you are saying peace is impossible because of terrain?

marcinmoka · February 18, 2007

Two things: I'm not sure its such a minor fringe as you suggest, and if you meant the mainstream majority you could have mentioned that at the outset.

Well what percentage do they constitute? I happen to know a few Israeli's and I have never, ever heard this opinion.

So, you are saying peace is impossible because of terrain?

No, peace is impossible due to the hostilities of those who want the terrain.

marcinmoka · February 19, 2007

I agree with reperations but with conditions;

- That the Italians compensate the Israelis for the expulsion of the Jews from Judea during the Roman Empire, thereby initiating the diaspora towards Europe.

- That the Egyptians accept their responsibility for enslaving the Jews a few millenia ago.

Figleaf · February 19, 2007

Two things: I'm not sure its such a minor fringe as you suggest, and if you meant the mainstream majority you could have mentioned that at the outset.

Well what percentage do they constitute?

I don't know, but judging by the geo-political choices and the kind of media spin we see come from Israel, my impression is that they are not inconsequential.

So, you are saying peace is impossible because of terrain?

No, peace is impossible due to the hostilities of those who want the terrain.

So peace is impossible because those who claim the terrain will fight for it?

marcinmoka · February 19, 2007

I don't know, but judging by the geo-political choices and the kind of media spin we see come from Israel, my impression is that they are not inconsequential.

Please tell me more. I read many newspapers, and have never heard anyone mention a willingness to expans Israel. And choices? Maybe my atlas is dated, but last that I checked Israel did not span from the Sinai all the way to southern Turkey while encompassing all of Syria, Jordan and northern portions of Saudi Arabia.

I'm still curious as to your sources and actual statistics regarding desires to expand Israel to the size of Solomon's Kingdom.

So peace is impossible because those who claim the terrain will fight for it?

Again, peace is impossible because those who claim the terrain will use it to "wipe Israel off the map".

Figleaf · February 19, 2007

I don't know, but judging by the geo-political choices and the kind of media spin we see come from Israel, my impression is that they are not inconsequential.

Please tell me more. I read many newspapers, and have never heard anyone mention a willingness to expans Israel.

Read wider.

So peace is impossible because those who claim the terrain will fight for it?

Again, peace is impossible because those who claim the terrain will use it to "wipe Israel off the map".

Well, if you want to believe the empty blustering of a nearly defeated people, go ahead. But it doesn't sound inherently plausible to me.

marcinmoka · February 19, 2007

Well, if you want to believe the empty blustering of a nearly defeated people, go ahead. But it doesn't sound inherently plausible to me.

Nearly defeated people? This is not just a narrow "Israel vs. Palestine" conflict. The entire middle east is at stake.

The Saudis are peacemaking BECAUSE they dont want a Shi'a influence in Palestine. This strategic advantage would be not used solely by "defeated" people, but by radicals from Syria, Iran, Lebanon, etc.

jbg · February 20, 2007

jbg, but you fail tom ention to mention that while the Palestinians have had to deal with their border shifting, the Israelis keep encroaching So it is not the same thing at all to your likening of the US Can border, a bit of a problematic strawman there, eh!

Why don't the "Palestinians" come up with some proposed productive activity for their future "state"? I have a sickening feeling that giving them land just give them a base from which to kill with impunity. Don't you have that feel?

By the way, the US and the Brits (there was no nation known as Canada, only provinces known as Upper and Lower Canada) did some "encroaching" back in the early part of the 19th Century, but no one would say that either country went primarily into the death business.