Questions for the 'Hurrah for Israel' crowd

Black Dog · February 16, 2007

He is revising history to further his desire that israel become what the anti israel crowd says it already is.

And why would he want to do that?

Also: why do you assume he has an agenda, yet accept the dominant narrative as the unvarnished truth? Surely you can't be so blind as to see how the immaculate conception narrative serves a pro-Israeli agenda?

In any case, tthese historical chats are interesting, but largely tangential. Now: can anyone tell me if Israel is currently willing to accept a permenant arrangment of its borders?

marcinmoka · February 16, 2007

“The British divided the land between the two. The Jews got the short side of the stick their”

Not really. The Arabs were promised the land a year before. But due to spectacularly bad and very short sighted planning of the Brits, but I’ll forgo the history as many of you already have it.

1) What do you think the Palestinian side should actually do?

Tough question. Even they are very, very divided, and that the only thing really linking the many groups (West Bank residents, Gaza , religious and secular, etc) is for the most part, a common hatred of the Jews. That would be a step in the right direction.

More importantly, to start thinking long term and strategically, and not just the short, quick answer that is “pay-back” or “revenge”. That just escalates things. But pride is hard to overcome.

Though this will not fly anytime soon, but introduce laws concerning secularity. As long as the majority are manipulated by the power/wealth seeking photo-op religious leaders, there will never be a solution.

Religion is important to any given people, but it should not be their sole tenet, especially for perverted for political and fiscal gains.

2) What outcome do you think they should expect by adopting your suggestion (please provide specifics)?

TRUST. Trust from Israel, Trust from Europe, Trust from America, Trust from other Arab governments. Israel has a right to be paranoid. Every few years, there are calls to destroy the Jewish people, something no other group can really claim has been taking place for thousands of years.

Black Dog · February 16, 2007

Hamas government resigns

The Hamas-dominated Palestinian government resigned Thursday after 11 turbulent months in power, clearing the way for a unity government intended to end deadly infighting and a Western boycott.
But as President Mahmud Abbas entasked outgoing prime minister Ismail Haniya of Hamas with forming a new broad-based coalition, the White House dashed any Palestinian hopes there would be a swift end to the crippling aid freeze.

...

The White House made clear that US demands remained the same for ending the boycott slapped on the Palestinian government when Hamas took power last March.

"Israel needs a negotiating partner that acknowledges Israel's right to exist, renounces the use of violence against Israel and also abides by previous international agreements involving the Palestinians and Israel," spokesman Tony Snow said.

My question is: what's the point of negotiating if theonly way the other side will consent to negotiations is if you give everything away before you even come to the table. Put another way: is Israel willing to renounce violence against Palestine or recognize the right of a Palestinian state to exist?

Argus · February 16, 2007

Why would you find it odd that Canadians questioned spending money to bail out faux Canadians who have demonstrated that they had no love for this country by abandoning it? What do we owe such people? Nothing.
On the other hand, the Jordanians and Palestinians are one people.

What do the Jordanians owe the Palestinians? Nothing.

Why would they not want to unite with their brothers in present day Palestine, enlarge their state, and solve the middle east crisis all in one go? Haven't they been crying for decades about their tremendous sympathy for Palestinians and their anguish and anger at their mistreatment? Why would you think they would want nothing to do with this idea?

Yeah, who wouldn't want a million undereducated, underemployed new citizens in their country.

What makes you think the Palestinians are any less educated or employable than Jordanians?

Catchme · February 17, 2007

Sorry, my memory was lacking. Yes Benny has an agenda, and it's palestine that he denies, and he;s trying to show how if it was okay then it's okay now. Either way, he's no different than Irving

So, basically, you're saying Morris's agenda is the opposite of what you said it was, but that he's still revising history in a way that reflects negatively on the Zionist enterprise? I would counter by saying it is the history which reflects negatively on the Zionist enterprise, not the man interpreting it. Indeed, if Morris is correct, then the real revisionists are those perpetuating the standrard narrative of Israel's immaculate conception.

You are correct, those, mentioned as well as Israeli historians are bringing to light, the revisionist Zionist false history that was perpetuated to the great harm of the Palestinian peoples.

Figleaf · February 17, 2007

“The British divided the land between the two. The Jews got the short side of the stick their”
Not really. The Arabs were promised the land a year before. But due to spectacularly bad and very short sighted planning of the Brits, but I’ll forgo the history as many of you already have it.

1) What do you think the Palestinian side should actually do?

Tough question. Even they are very, very divided, and that the only thing really linking the many groups (West Bank residents, Gaza , religious and secular, etc) is for the most part, a common hatred of the Jews. That would be a step in the right direction.

More importantly, to start thinking long term and strategically, and not just the short, quick answer that is “pay-back” or “revenge”. That just escalates things. But pride is hard to overcome.

Though this will not fly anytime soon, but introduce laws concerning secularity. As long as the majority are manipulated by the power/wealth seeking photo-op religious leaders, there will never be a solution.

Religion is important to any given people, but it should not be their sole tenet, especially for perverted for political and fiscal gains.

2) What outcome do you think they should expect by adopting your suggestion (please provide specifics)?

TRUST. Trust from Israel, Trust from Europe, Trust from America, Trust from other Arab governments. Israel has a right to be paranoid. Every few years, there are calls to destroy the Jewish people, something no other group can really claim has been taking place for thousands of years.

Thank you for your reply. An interesting pattern is emerging from all these responses. Most people have lots to say about what the Palestinians should do, but usually very little (as here) about question 2. You say the outcome is to be 'trust'. But that is both vague and more notably, useless. What good is this trust supposed to produce for the Palestinians? Is it useful for Palestinians to know that Likudniks trust them not to fight back while settlements are built on their lands?

Figleaf · February 17, 2007

Hamas government resigns
The Hamas-dominated Palestinian government resigned Thursday after 11 turbulent months in power, clearing the way for a unity government intended to end deadly infighting and a Western boycott.
But as President Mahmud Abbas entasked outgoing prime minister Ismail Haniya of Hamas with forming a new broad-based coalition, the White House dashed any Palestinian hopes there would be a swift end to the crippling aid freeze.

...

The White House made clear that US demands remained the same for ending the boycott slapped on the Palestinian government when Hamas took power last March.

"Israel needs a negotiating partner that acknowledges Israel's right to exist, renounces the use of violence against Israel and also abides by previous international agreements involving the Palestinians and Israel," spokesman Tony Snow said.

My question is: what's the point of negotiating if theonly way the other side will consent to negotiations is if you give everything away before you even come to the table. Put another way: is Israel willing to renounce violence against Palestine or recognize the right of a Palestinian state to exist?

Exactly. Precisely. As we look at many of the responses here, IF they represent the prevailing Israeli position, it is kind of obvious that there is no real peace option available to the Palestinians.

Remiel · February 17, 2007

Well... In return for peace, renouncing of violence, and other such things, they Palestinians...

They should expect that Israel treat Palestinian lands, settlements and people as Israeli lands, settlements and people for the purpose of defensive military action. I.E. If some other country were to try to expropriate what little decent Palestinian land there is, Israel should back them up, 100%, since it seems inevitable that Palestinian military would be indefinately restricted. Also, Israel should treat Palestinian lives and property with the same respect they treat Israeli lives and property. Essentially, this is for the Israelis to convince average Palestinians that they are for them, even under the worst of circumstances. If Palestinians all thought they were on the same side as Israel, even if they didn't like them, there would be no fighting.

They should expect all of their funds to be returned to them, with interest. What is happening now is essentially the theft of the wages of tens of thousands of legitimate government workers, and I have not heard of any effort to bypass Fatah and Hamas to pay those people.

They should expect that ALL hostile military actions of Israel cease immediately after. Not in steps, no phasing out. All of it.

They should expect that the barrier come down, and that any illegal Israeli settlements that were on previously occupied land be dismantled. Illegal settlements that were on completely unused land may be allowed to stay. In the end though, most important thing is that Palestinians have a geographically viable territory.

They should expect that they not be treated like some sort of monolithic group if occassionally a few psychos feel like being persistent. No society can absolutely control the actions of individual members, its impossible, and Israel should recognize that holds true for the Palestinians as well. I mean, why hasn't Israel forcefully rid itself of the Israeli mob?

The Israelis should expect reciprocal respect of their citizens and territory.

scribblet · February 17, 2007

Just a 'few' psychos ?

These are not my words, but I respect this opinion, it says it better than I can.

"My own opinion is that there isn't. Why? Because what would be considered as a "Just Solution" by one side, represents injustice to the other side. For example, many Palestinians want to eliminate Israel as a Jewish state and want it replaced by an Arab Muslim state. They also want the return of all the refugees and their descendants (between 2 to 3 million people) and the expulsion of many if not most Jews. To them, nothing less than this would be a just solution. And even the more moderate Palestinans claim that at a minimum, a just solution would require Israel to allow those 2 to 3 million Palestinians to settle in Israel proper (if they choose to do so or to get them compensation otherwise).

Of course, the Jewish/Israeli perspective (mostly) is that such a solution would not be just. Firstly, because allowing 2 to 3 million Arabs to become Israeli citizens would destroy current Israeli society and it would leave Jews without even the small parcel of land that is now Israel and even one homeland while the Arabs would get their 23rd state and ownership of about just about 100% of the middle East on top of their 100% ownership of all of North Africa (Together, the ME and North Africa represents a vast amount of land mass, many times the size of tiny Israel). Secondly, they object to the idea of compensation because:

1. A similar number of Jews were expelled from Arab countries

2. The Palestinian Arabs who fled in 1948, did so because of a war that the Arabs/Palestinians initiated. That war and other wars that Israel did not want, resulted in thousands of Israeli/Jewish deaths, injuries and material loss.

So that leaves only the pragmatic solution which involves compromise. In other words, each side accepts a solution which gives them less than 100% of what they would ideally would like to get but nevertheless it's a solution that they can hopefully accept for the sake of peace? Does such a solution exist? If not, is it ever likely to come about in the future? Or is the world just kidding itself about peace in the Middle East?

A pragmatic solution would be a compromise from both sides - that is something would give both sides less than 100% of what they they want for the sake of peace. Peace at any cost for the Israelis does not mean they will accept genocide as we know the Palestinian position is dedicated to destroying Israel."

Catchme · February 17, 2007

That is a dishonest picture of the history scribblet.

southerncomfort · February 17, 2007

Just a 'few' psychos ?
These are not my words, but I respect this opinion, it says it better than I can.

1. A similar number of Jews were expelled from Arab countries

2. The Palestinian Arabs who fled in 1948, did so because of a war that the Arabs/Palestinians initiated. That war and other wars that Israel did not want, resulted in thousands of Israeli/Jewish deaths, injuries and material loss.

-----

A pragmatic solution would be a compromise from both sides - that is something would give both sides less than 100% of what they they want for the sake of peace. Peace at any cost for the Israelis does not mean they will accept genocide as we know the Palestinian position is dedicated to destroying Israel."

Very accurate and of course very honest. I wonder if Hamas and the rest of them are ready for full nation hood and all the various levels of government needed to maintain a national infrastucture. What would they do with the money they would get including Canada's aid. Would they honour the peace and help their people?

Catchme · February 17, 2007

1. A similar number of Jews were expelled from Arab countries

2. The Palestinian Arabs who fled in 1948, did so because of a war that the Arabs/Palestinians initiated. That war and other wars that Israel did not want, resulted in thousands of Israeli/Jewish deaths, injuries and material loss.

-----

A pragmatic solution would be a compromise from both sides - that is something would give both sides less than 100% of what they they want for the sake of peace. Peace at any cost for the Israelis does not mean they will accept genocide as we know the Palestinian position is dedicated to destroying Israel."

Very accurate and of course very honest. I wonder if Hamas and the rest of them are ready for full nation hood and all the various levels of government needed to maintain a national infrastucture. What would they do with the money they would get including Canada's aid. Would they honour the peace and help their people?

Sorry but you are both in error. And no 2 errors do not make a fact.

The debate is generated by Israeli scholars who challenge the official Israeli historical version of Zionism’s origins and the birth of Israel. Theirs is a non-Zionist narrative of history and this is its main importance.
It is not that alternatives to the Zionist history are new. Ever since the state of Israel was created the official Zionist account of events has been challenged by competing historical narratives. First and foremost, there is the Palestinian version—a version manifested in scholarly works, novels and poetry and expressed through the years in various political declarations and resolutions by the Palestine Liberation Organization.

But there also were challenges from the Jewish community in Palestine and later from within Israeli society. The challengers within Israel itself were mainly supporters of the Israeli Communist Party or of small radical and leftist anti-Zionist political groups. In these political circles, history was taught very differently from the official version learned by most Israelis. The historical version of the non- and anti-Zionist left is closer to the Palestinian version than the official Zionist narrative. The official and mainstream Zionist version of events concerning the birth of Israel was also challenged by right-wingers in Israel who attributed the 1948 Jewish success solely to the Stern Gang and other Jewish terrorist organizations that fought against the British and clashed with Palestinians throughout the 1940s.

Not only was the 1948 story challenged. The prevailing myths about the treatment of minority groups in Israel received new scrutiny. After the 1967 war, Israel’s Black Panther movement questioned the conduct of the young state towards the Jewish immigrants it brought from the Arab countries.

Similarly, the Palestinian community in Israel, the Israeli Arabs as they are known today, began to demand a re-reading of one of the ugliest chapters in the state’s history. In the wake of the 1948 war, the Palestinian population that remained under Israeli rule was placed under a severe and brutal military regime for nearly two decades (1948-1966). This minority was robbed of every human and civil right and maltreated by local military governors. Awareness of this has cast a shadow over the collective memory of the Israeli left, which was accustomed to reminiscing about the little and beautiful state of pre-1967 Israel.

http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?iid=35&aid=427&pg=1

southerncomfort · February 17, 2007

I'll remember that next time you post some 'facts' !

Remiel · February 17, 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.

Borg · February 17, 2007

Well Figleaf - I figure the answer is simple.

1. Stop kicking the bee hive.

2. Peace.

If Palestine were to stop bothering Israel and lay down their arms, peace would break out.

If Israel were to do the same, it would be a slaughter.

Never happen though - too much ingrained hatred - taught from the time the Palestinian kids can watch television.

Borg

Questions for the 'Hurrah for Israel' crowd:
In terms of a comprehensive resolution of the Palestine/Israel conflict --

1) What do you think the Palestinian side should actually do?

2) What outcome do you think they should expect by adopting your suggestion (please provide specifics)?

Rue · February 17, 2007

Questions for the 'Hurrah for Israel' crowd:
In terms of a comprehensive resolution of the Palestine/Israel conflict --

1) What do you think the Palestinian side should actually do?

2) What outcome do you think they should expect by adopting your suggestion (please provide specifics)?

You have demonstrated in past posts that;

1-you are not interested in any dialogue as to the above questions;

2-use such questions as a platform to ignore the responses and make negative subjective generalizations with no basis of fact against all Jews;

3-deliberately mistate Jewish history.

I would advise people responding to you is pointless.

marcinmoka · February 17, 2007

What good is this trust supposed to produce for the Palestinians? Is it useful for Palestinians to know that Likudniks trust them not to fight back while settlements are built on their lands?

I think Borg hit the nail on the head when he said

If Palestine were to stop bothering Israel and lay down their arms, peace would break out.
If Israel were to do the same, it would be a slaughter.

They are a minority, and their neighbours are vocal and VERY passionate about destroying them. 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. If there was a genuine, long term peace, then settlements would be out of the question.

Israel has never experienced peace and acceptance, and their actions are the result of a "war" mentality. It was Catherine the Great who claimed the most effective way to secure her borders is to expand them.

Catchme · February 17, 2007

The debate is generated by Israeli scholars who challenge the official Israeli historical version of Zionism’s origins and the birth of Israel. Theirs is a non-Zionist narrative of history and this is its main importance.
It is not that alternatives to the Zionist history are new. Ever since the state of Israel was created the official Zionist account of events has been challenged by competing historical narratives. First and foremost, there is the Palestinian version—a version manifested in scholarly works, novels and poetry and expressed through the years in various political declarations and resolutions by the Palestine Liberation Organization.

But there also were challenges from the Jewish community in Palestine and later from within Israeli society. The challengers within Israel itself were mainly supporters of the Israeli Communist Party or of small radical and leftist anti-Zionist political groups. In these political circles, history was taught very differently from the official version learned by most Israelis. The historical version of the non- and anti-Zionist left is closer to the Palestinian version than the official Zionist narrative. The official and mainstream Zionist version of events concerning the birth of Israel was also challenged by right-wingers in Israel who attributed the 1948 Jewish success solely to the Stern Gang and other Jewish terrorist organizations that fought against the British and clashed with Palestinians throughout the 1940s.

Not only was the 1948 story challenged. The prevailing myths about the treatment of minority groups in Israel received new scrutiny. After the 1967 war, Israel’s Black Panther movement questioned the conduct of the young state towards the Jewish immigrants it brought from the Arab countries.

Similarly, the Palestinian community in Israel, the Israeli Arabs as they are known today, began to demand a re-reading of one of the ugliest chapters in the state’s history. In the wake of the 1948 war, the Palestinian population that remained under Israeli rule was placed under a severe and brutal military regime for nearly two decades (1948-1966). This minority was robbed of every human and civil right and maltreated by local military governors. Awareness of this has cast a shadow over the collective memory of the Israeli left, which was accustomed to reminiscing about the little and beautiful state of pre-1967 Israel.

http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?iid=35&aid=427&pg=1

Again, this link above is to the University of Haifa and it is a 7 page or so treatise on the "actual" true accounts of what happened when Israel was created.

Zionists in Israel, have a tendancy to speak for all Jews, this is why prominent Jews the world over are taking a stand and saying; "you do NOT speak for ALL Jews" and followed by; "we are not in agreement with actions of Zionist Israel against Palestinians"

The proof of this is in the British Jews Take a Stand thread.

Borg · February 17, 2007

marcinmoka - be careful - to support me will get you in the bad books of dozens on this board who sit on the left side of common sense.

See the post above by catchme - a "divert" post versus an answer to the original question along with an attempt to actually sound like she is knowledgeable on the subject.

As for the original questions - the answers are and still are simple.

Stop attacking the country that is now a neighbour and will not go away. Lay down their arms and allow peace to break out.

Others will simply pontificate and throw data around in order to obscure the obvious.

Stop the teaching of hatred to your kids and get on with life. And I would bet you a drink and dinner in the establishment of your choice that when this happens, peace will reign supreme.

Borg

What good is this trust supposed to produce for the Palestinians? Is it useful for Palestinians to know that Likudniks trust them not to fight back while settlements are built on their lands?

I think Borg hit the nail on the head when he said

If Palestine were to stop bothering Israel and lay down their arms, peace would break out.
If Israel were to do the same, it would be a slaughter.

They are a minority, and their neighbours are vocal and VERY passionate about destroying them. 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. If there was a genuine, long term peace, then settlements would be out of the question.

Israel has never experienced peace and acceptance, and their actions are the result of a "war" mentality. It was Catherine the Great who claimed the most effective way to secure her borders is to expand them.

Figleaf · February 18, 2007

Well Figleaf - I figure the answer is simple.
1. Stop kicking the bee hive.

2. Peace.

If Palestine were to stop bothering Israel and lay down their arms, peace would break out.

If Israel were to do the same, it would be a slaughter.

Never happen though - too much ingrained hatred - taught from the time the Palestinian kids can watch television.

Borg

Questions for the 'Hurrah for Israel' crowd:

In terms of a comprehensive resolution of the Palestine/Israel conflict --

1) What do you think the Palestinian side should actually do?

2) What outcome do you think they should expect by adopting your suggestion (please provide specifics)?

Well, thanks, Borg, but like so many others, you're response falls short of useful specificity in regard to question 2. Please review the thread and flesh out your vision of "peace".

Figleaf · February 18, 2007

Questions for the 'Hurrah for Israel' crowd:

In terms of a comprehensive resolution of the Palestine/Israel conflict --

1) What do you think the Palestinian side should actually do?

2) What outcome do you think they should expect by adopting your suggestion (please provide specifics)?

You have demonstrated in past posts that;

1-you are not interested in any dialogue as to the above questions;

2-use such questions as a platform to ignore the responses and make negative subjective generalizations with no basis of fact against all Jews;

3-deliberately mistate Jewish history.

I would advise people responding to you is pointless.[

Rue, take your lies and get stuffed.

Figleaf · February 18, 2007

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

Well, a couple of things:

1. 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.

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

3. If Israel wanted peace, why did their final Oslo offer fall so far short of being reasonable?

Borg · February 18, 2007

Well, thanks, Borg, but like so many others, you're response falls short of useful specificity in regard to question 2. Please review the thread and flesh out your vision of "peace".

Well allow me to put it in simpler terms.

Isreal is not the aggressor. If they are not attacked or threatened they will not retaliate.

If there is no one shooting or bombing them - they will not do the same thing in return.

That is fleshed out enough for most - hopefully it works for you.

So - in closing:

If Palestinians stopped doing their darndest to remove Isreal from the map - and their neigbours stopped doing this - peace would break out.

If Isreal lays down it's arms. it will disappear in a week - pure slaughter.

I am sure you will be pompous enough to refute at least a little or possibly all of what I have written - but the best solutions are usually the simplest.

Now - get the Palestinain people to stop teaching their children it is good to kill Isrealis. Peace will come.

Until then it will not.

Peace - the absence of war - or do you want me to give you a Websters definition.

Am I clear enough for you?

Take your "useful specifity" and stuff it where the sun does not shine, because it is folks like you that perpetuate the problem.

You are such a pompous ass.

Borg

Figleaf · February 18, 2007

Well, thanks, Borg, but like so many others, you're response falls short of useful specificity in regard to question 2. Please review the thread and flesh out your vision of "peace".

Well allow me to put it in simpler terms.

Isreal is not the aggressor. If they are not attacked or threatened they will not retaliate.

If there is no one shooting or bombing them - they will not do the same thing in return.

That is fleshed out enough for most - hopefully it works for you.

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

Take your "useful specifity" and stuff it where the sun does not shine, because it is folks like you that perpetuate the problem.

Wow, what a bizarrely immature response.

You are such a pompous ass.

Reported to the Admin.

jbg · February 18, 2007

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

Peace is peace. Examples are the US-Canadian border, and the various borders in the European Union. If there is a disagreement, it's negotiated or studied to death. Peace excludes having a recipe for continued warfare.

If that is unacceptable to the Palestinians, there will be no peace.