Said thriving would be fully dependent on the axiom that Israel would simply stop fighting if the Palestinian leadership stopped antagonizing Israel. This is a false axiom. Maybe I should ask you this: how is Israel stopping terrorism by annexing land and bulldozing Palestinian homes? The obvious answer is they're not. No, I'd say that based on the actions of the Israeli state that their goal is not peace with the Palestinians but rather to simply remove them completely from Israel AND their lands. Based on that, if the Palestinians stopped fighting, they'd simply make it easier for the Israelis to remove them.

What can legitimize Hamas RB, when they insist on infighting with Fatah, and not renouncing terrorism?

I'm sure things were peachy for Israel at their inception, there was that whole being invaded by 9 neighboring armies when they declared independence.

I can maybe see a parallel in RB's point that Israel was founded partially as a result of terrorism. But comparing the Israeli's of then to Hamas is night and day. Why legitimize a group that doesn't want to work with you? The road map could be the worse thing ever, it probably won't work, I would argue it isn't Bush's fault, it never had a chance...; at any rate at least in Fatah there is a partner willing to work with the outside parties.

I cannot fathom this thought process, what is Israel's option then?

They have no means of redress because Palestine is at best an infant in terms of government/being a nation state. They are letting the Palestinians off easy when you consider daily aggressive actions taken against them. The Palestinians won't reign in their own militants, they vote them into a place of political power. Israeli's have the right to defend themselves, not only the right, but the repsonsibility.

Israel has stopped annexing land, as far as the bulldozing of homes, perhaps consider renouncing suicide bombings.

Israel has offered peace and concessions more times than it should've, the Arabs and the Palestinians only have themselves to blame for the current situation they are facing.

Israel gave complete withdrawal in 2005 at which point there was only 179 rocket attacks that year. They tried to make peace, but once they withdrew, the attacks went up to 946 rocket attacks in 2006 and 896 in 2007. And so far over 400 in 2008. Israel has given back land and offered to come to the table to make peace, but you need a partner to talk with. The bulldozing of houses occur in 2 different cases: First is if the person is a suicide bomber, they then bulldoze the house. Second is they have bulldozed strips of area where the rockets are being fired from. They do not keep this land after they just remove anything that is being used as cover for them to fire rockets from.

If they never put down their gun / rocket long enough to talk, they will never have peace. Since you can not have peace with terror.

How much did they give back?
Those two things aren't connected. Unless you're suggesting that the radical actions of a few extremists are being punished by destroying the homes of people that were not involved in any way in violence.

The bulldozing and annexing are clearly connected. Israel is trying to destroy Palestine, or rather finish the job that the British, League of Nations and UN started.
It's easy for a rich nation to offer peace to a subjugated people while attacking and antagonizing them. It's a PR campaign and has nothing to do with peace.

Yes they did give back land several parts of land, an example would be gush katef (not sure if spelled right in English). Gush had huge contract deals was amazing green houses, that produced ton of food exports to the states. First thing done after the transfer, they burnt them down to the ground.

For the bulldozing as I said above:

Swing and a miss. Israel fell back a bit in 2005, but a complete withdrawal isn't just the Gaza Strip.
Israel broke UN Resolution 242 in their annexations. Their withdrawal had to do with international pressures, not peace.
And what did Israel do in those times to provoke Palestine? Nothing? Were they building that wall as a decoration, to make the country more Feng Shui?
The demolition is illegal according to the UN Courts. Israel is a member of the UN and is therefore under the jurisdiction of their rulings. The UN can't do anything about it because Israel's big buddy the US sits on the security council, but it's still illegal, along with the wall and other human rights abuses.

BTW, in this story, and American is run over trying to protect a Palestinian home from being bulldozed. The family in the home was not connected to any terrorists and there hadn't been rocket attacks from the area. She died, btw.

Will, Israel hasn't annexed anything since the Golan back in (I think) 1981. But even if it has, since when is a political dispute - and that's what an argument over who gets to control a piece of land is - adequate justification for launching rockets into populated areas? Areas that, I might add, are at least in theory not contested?

Annexation, even if it took place, is negotiable and reversible. Killing and maiming isn't. A bit of perspective, please.

And the wall was put up to keep the bad guys out. The Palis wouldn't police their own so Israel had to do it for them.

http://www.btselem.org/English/Settl...dan_Valley.asp
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/ma...isra-m23.shtml
Flip flopper...
Since when? Since Israel starts building Israeli homes in the annexed territory so it's difficult to impossible to get completely back.
You're right. It's not as if Israelis are killing Palestinians. How silly of me. I'm so silly.
The wall is illegal.

They built the wall for defense nothing to do with looks. Since the Palestinian government will not stop suicide bombers, they have to defend themselves. And the story of Rachel Corrie is a tragedy. The military was there looking for explosives in the security area, and the autopsy report shows not that she was rundown but was hit by a hard object probably concrete. The house was not knocked down at the time (though I do not know why offhand, but it was destroyed later).

You can continue to say whatever about Israel having an upper hand and not really negotiating in good faith, but they are willing to come to the table and have shown by giving back land the desire for peace. But it has to be a two way street.

Wall is as illegal as terrorist, it is a border that keeps suicide bombers out. Since the UN seems unable to stop it, you have to do what you can to keep your citizens safe.

You really think I was serious about the Feng Shui comment? Hmm. Okay. I don't know about you, but I don't think this:
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/pre...7/45068195.JPG
is an effective tool in searching for explosives. Especially when it purposely knocks over a wall on a girl.
They have all the marbles. They have the big military, they have the WWII sympathy, they have the big, burly moron of a friend who backs them up whether they're right or wrong. They even have nukes! It seems as if people forget that Israel CAN negotiate.

What happens if Palestine negotiates a cease-fire, but because they lack infrastructure for proper police they can't stop some dumb kid from avenging the brutal murder of his older brother by Israeli soldiers? Simple: Israel is called a victim and Palestine is the evil terrorist aggressors in the media.

Now, multiply that by 1000.
Oh, so if someone is doing something illegal against you, you can do something illegal back. I'll be sure to remember that the next time I see someone change lanes without signaling. I'll start speeding or something.

State sovereignty supercedes any bullshit UN law.

I have yet to hear Israel really called the victim ever. Most attacks on Israel do not get reported at all.

And no one else has come up with a single solution or idea in how to stop them from coming across the border without the wall. It is not to be aggressive but defensive to defend themselves. And if you want to speed, I won't tell.

And the armored D9 Bulldozer from my recollection does not look like that.

The solution is radically simple: stop antagonizing, annexing, bombing, attacking, walling, and murdering Palestinians. Give them their territory (West Bank, the whole Gaza Strip, and Galilee, just as it was in Resolution 181), half of Jerusalem, and leave them to their own devices. Allow them to become an actual state.

Oh, and give the damn farms back to Lebanon. Stop giving Hezbollah a reason for attacking. Once that is gone, they're attacking for no reason and will lose much support (like they were losing support before the attacks in 2006).


Did you know that Israel has launched a major war on Arabs in every decade during the second half of the twentieth century?

... BECAUSE I SAID SO! SO THERE! :grumpy:


:rolleyes:

Israel has launched a war on Arabs every decade? Outside of Suez and the possibly the 6-day war (Which I'm sure wasn't stoked by Egyptian military buildup in the Sinai, Straits of Tiran, Jordanian military mobilization to the Jordan river), that is perhaps the most blatantly false revisionist history I have ever seen here.

Actually, it's called "Will knows history".
- October 29, 1956: Israel attacks Egypt, who was disputing the ownership of the Suez Canal
- June 5, 1967: Israel preemptively attacks Egypt, who had amazzed tanks on the boarder
- October 6, 1973: Israel was given the canal by the UN, and built up large military installations and fortifications, from which war could easily be waged or defended. In addition to this, Israel had solidified it's policy of preemptive attack. Knowing that an attack from Israel was eminent, the Egyptians and Syrians moved in. Israel took the opportunity to breach he UN imposed cease fire and drove farther South.
- June 6, 1982: Israel Defense forces invade Southern Lebanon.
- July 12, 2006: Israel invades Lebanon, again.

Sorry, I forgot the Israelis weren't officially in the coalition in 1992.

Wow a total perversion of historical detail, and your initial statement still false.

It's a good thing you put me in my place by correcting it... oh wait.

There's no perversion. It's all factual evidence, so unless you have something that contradicts this, don't talk about perversions. The only perversion is some people's unbreakable and illogical devotion to Israel. It's a political conflict. Read the facts and make a reasonable, dispassionate decision.

How is Yom Kippur an act of Israeli aggression, if Egypt and Syria did the exact same thing Israel did in the six day?

About Lebanon, I know you hold zero culpability to terrorists, in this case the PLO, so I don't know how I could justify to you in a million years Israel's moving into a destabilized country in the midst of a civil war which terrorists were using as a base to launch assaults against the country. But obviously the Israeli's were out of line as the Lebanese government, or any of the various muslim/christian factions were either in a position or willing to reign in said terrorists.

Israel in Lebanon in 06'. Yeah I'm sure cross border incursions by Hezbollah militants resulting in the death of 8 Israeli soldiers and kidnapping of two soldiers don't count as an act of war or aggression in your book, especially as Hezbollah in effectively an acting agent of the government, but in a reasonable world they do.

Will, it's not factual. It's cherry picked nonsense.

from today's news article about the shootings in a seminary cafeteria in Jerusalem (emphasis mine):And that tells you all you need to know about the morality play here. If you weren't so devoted to the left-wing narrative about supposedly oppressed peoples you'd see things a bit more clearly. Those people could have had their independence a long time ago. They don't want it if it means Israel lives. They'd rather be miserable and keep attacking than be prosperous and have Israel as a neighbor. I don't know how much more of this crap has to happen before you understand.

The late Golda Meir had it exactly right (this is a paraphrase): "the dispute will end when the Arabs decide that they love their children more than they hate us."

When one side bases its attacks on a reward system that includes the promise of banging 72 Virgins for all eternity once they kill themselves in an effort to kill others, I have to say that logic and reason are not on your side.

Exactly.

I always wondered if the 72 virgins got in to lesbianism after all you can only do so much with so many at a time.

In some situations there are two aggressors. In both situations both sides were building and planning for war. I hold them both equally responsible in each war. They were both aggressors.
That's a nice red herring you've got there. I think the Israelis prefer cod, though.
Why was the PLO in Lebanon? Answer that and you'll get your answer.
Hezbollah captures a few Israeli soldiers. Israel invades Lebanon. Thousands of Lebanese (and others) die, and hundreds of thousands are displaced. That's a war of aggression.

Now Hezbollah is stronger because Israel made them into maryters and heros. Where in early 2006, Hezbollah was losing power and support, they're now gaining in both.

BTW, I still haven't seen anything I posted proven as revisionist. Is that, perhaps, a red herring as well?

And you're an atheist? Or do you believe that a carpenter/demi-god is building you a mansion in heaven?

The 72 virgins appear no where in the Qur'an, btw. They're from the Hadith, which is disputed heavily in the Islamic faith.

More info on that here: http://www.citizensoldier.org/72virgins.html

pulled this because it was too typo-laden. I'll start over.

Yes, Will, I know. Israel should commit suicide to satisfy your moral sensibilities. Very nice.

Good point. I think if i were a jihadi, I would want to die with a video camera strapped around my neck.

Will, this was in that link you posted: Wow, you also get 80,000 slaves? I did not know that. So not only does it reiterate the 72 virgins bit, but it says the only way to get into heaven is through Jihad. Now how crazy is that: the only way into heaven is to kill, kill, KILL!

The Israeli settlements have no legal validity according to UN Resolutions 446, 452, 465 and 471. The EU has come forward to say that they're illegal. Even the Legal Adviser of the Department of State has said that they breach international law.

Can we please stop the horrendous red herrings please?
You're better than this.

Most Muslims don't believe that, PowerClown. That was the point that fell on deaf ears. Most Muslims don't believe in the slaves or the virgins. It's not in the Qur'an.

I noticed that in your blind attack on Islam, you forgot to respond to this:
Enjoy trying to explain the hypocrisy of attacking a religion because you believe that their beliefs are absurd while you yourself believe in the supernatural.

Just the few making all the headlines, the ones attacking Israel from every side. Why apologize for them? Even though they're not "most", why apologize for them, why do they get a free pass? (That was rhetorical.)

Very few suicide bombers actually believe that they're going to get 72 virgins. Most are out for vengeance, which is a somewhat more universal ideal.

And they don't get a free pass. I don't support any form of violence including but not limited to guerilla tactics ("terrorism"). The problem is that so many people are biased on the issue that I only end up talking about Israel and how many times they've fucked up. In a debate or conversation with someone objective, I'd probably end up condemning them equally, for different reasons. Palestine continues to fuck up royally. The problem is that they have no clue how to actually win independence. They're strategy is the same as Israel: you hit us, we'll hit you back. That only continues meaningless violence and blood-shed.

I would go back and read post #38 in this thread, first paragraph. It's right on the money. The Palestinians are pawns, and the Israelis too. Pawns in a game of "Spheres of Influence" in the region. I happen to believe more in the ideology of the players pulling the strings on the Israeli side than the Palestinian one, ie., separation of church and state, open societies, religious tolerance, higher education, etc.

In saying this, I think America has done a very poor job in the last 8 years of dealing with the situation. Less than poor, and it disturbs me frankly. The situation could spiral out of everyone's control at anytime, and lead to widescale conflict, including outside of the Middle East. I like what I hear from most of the presidential candidates on the matter, but its going to take much more of an intelligent, measured, open-minded committment than has been present from the past 8 years. It must acknowledge Arab interests more. It can be done, Clinton had the right idea.

You mean until the second intifada started.

We can continue to assume a culture raised on hatred of Jews and the glory of dying for Allah can be negotiated to a fair honest lasting compromise solution if you like.

Was that Clinton's fault, or Arafat's?

I agree with this. Things were very close. Israel had offered 95% of what the Palestinians wanted and instead of making a counter offer, the answer was Intifada 2.

The Arab League has offered to normalize relations with Israel if it can pull back to pre-67 borders. While Palestine is the one sending the rockets, it is the Arab League that is giving them the support (Iran too). Dialogue with the Arab League would be beneficial to Israel.

I've shared extensively in prior posts on this forum, the origins of US foreign policy in support of Israel in the late 1940's...the shift in the direction it has taken us to now, originated in the exchanges between Harry Truman and his former business partner, <a href="http://www.trumanlibrary.org/hstpaper/jacobson.htm">Edward Jacobson</a>, and it's progression into the influence on US policy from lobbying entities such as <a href="http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1061.html">JINSA</a> and <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2262025&highlight=aipac#post2262025">AIPAC.</a>

The information I have shared has shaped my opinion. I think my thinking is close to including Harry Truman's priorities in deciding what policy to pursue about whether to support the creation of the modern state of Israel, or not.

The posts in this forum showcase how we in the US today, as far as public opinion on relations between Israel and the Palestinians, are almost unanimous in our nearly unquestioning support for Israel, and condemnation of the actions and rhetoric of the Palestinians.

Truman was persuaded, with great reluctance, to start the US down the road towards unqualified support of Israel that we in the US have been immersed in since the 60s.

If Truman were able to read the comments posted on this forum, and post in reaction to them, do you think he would exhibit opinions closer to those of roachboy, willravel, and one or two others, or those of the rest of you?

Do those who disagree with roachboy and willravel satisfy themselves that their support for Israel as thoroughly takes into account what truly is in the interest of the US, as far as the degree of official policy in support for Israel, as Truman had to, before he acted on the advice of his friend, Edward Jacobson?

I know my support for Israel does, because I keep a leash on it. It isn't unqualified, and Truman's support wasn't either. He started from a point where he refused to lend US support to the creation of the modern state of Israel, at all. Truman reversed himself. I, too, support Israel's right to exist, it's right to defend itself. I also vehemently believe Israel must practice restraint commensurate with it's now collossal strategic and military force advantage.

I believe the US must distance itself, firmly from Israel, until Israel demonstrates that it will restrain itself in it's reaction to Palestinian attacks, and in it's efforts to influence US middle east policy. I think I describe Truman's reaction to what he "let out of the bottle", in a nutshell.

I cannot comprehend the vehemence behind most of your opinions. I don't see how your vehemence, since it has no accomodation for skepticism, is good for the US, but it is great for Israel, unless Israel is committed to mitigating the crisis in it's relationship with the Palestinians.

to my mind, there is a way in which this is simple. the words are simple anyway.

by this point, all slogans concerning israel's "right to exist" are nothing more than political slogans. they speak to alienation and a form of nostalgia for a life without colonial occupation. they are rhetorical devices. you know this. i know this. everyone fucking knows this.

by this point, it is obvious that if israel were to begin making serious moves toward ending the occupation that the frame of reference folk like to throw around as continuous since 1948 even though nothing is continuous since 1948 least of all israel itself, which is a regional military superpower in 2008 which is surely was not in 1948, but hey no mater, folk like to play historian when it is convenient for them, but they don't like to think too much when they do it. if you cant distinguish discontinuities and continuities then maybe playing historian is too much for you and you should simply watch more tv.

so the geo-political situation seems a variable not a fixed parameter.
the slogans of hamas etc. are slogans. bargaining chips.
israel could negociate seriously, i think they would find MORE THAN willing partners in it because if you imagine that ANYONE wins in the present degrading situation, you're delusional.

well except for one thing.
the problem comrades, is the settlements.
the problems that follow from this:

a. they are centers of extreme right politics.
likud needs the far right. so like any conservative party that has to give handjobs to neofascists, this has consequences. [[edit: i think the krach party, for example, is a neofascist organization.]]

b. i dont think the right has the stomach for what would be required to remove the settlements, now that they are there. i dont think the right can face the prospect of a de facto civil war, what would look like a civil war, what would generate the reality and image of division within a "national community" that is central to conservative political ideology.

edit: this would not only provide potentially very ugly tv footage but would also trigger a debate about what israel *is* inside of israel. i think that debate has already been a central feature of politics about israel--within zionism, there were multiple visions--and if you think about the range of political organizations within israel, has been a debate since 1948 as well. there are fundamental questions that would get raised again. personally, from the outside, i wouldn't see the problem in principle with that--but that is obviously a view from outside. i think that the political right would see itself as in a loose-loose situation were this to unfold.

so the situation with palestine is a giant political expedient.
nothing more, nothing less.
a coherent palestinian state presupposes the dismantling of the settlements--EVERYONE knows that these settlements are a problem--where they are, the tenuous claims they rest on, the often racist politics of the inhabitants---why it's not that different from the american west of the late 19th century and we all know how well that played out for the native americans. "the greater israel" is a form of "manifest destiny" which is a figleaf waved around to justify the erasure of the Other in the name of a nationalist hallucination. it is the pathology of nation at its most appalling.

all this is easy to say: but i havent any idea how one would go about addressing the problem of the settlements--which are STILL BEING BUILT. and so long as the settlements are STILL BEING BUILT, israel has **no**credibility as a negotiating partner--it is simply a brutal colonial occupation force that reaps what it sows in terms of violence.

but the issue of the settlements has to be moved into the center of the negociations--and the americans have to force this question--that this is **the**problem is no mystery. maybe a solution could be arrived at through negotiations. maybe a multinational force could be formed which included significant israeli co-operation to evacuate the settlements. but ehy have to go--they should not exist at all--they were, are and will remain illegal. their logic is annexation and it appears that any degree of brutalization of the palestinians is just OK as a consequence of this---they are the source of the cycle of occupation, the cause for why it is as it is. they have to go.

and they are sorta outside the israeli control, they are sorta outside in the way that any officially sanctioned annexation policy is, in the way that any national annexation policy is...

host, didn't you once say you unconditionally supported Israel back when they were the "underdog"?

Israel hasn't been the underdog since before my parents were born.

No, I don't think the issue is the settlements anymore. Well, it is insofar as it gives the Iranians and Palestinians an excuse to keep up their attacks. There was nothing but rocket fire from Gaza after Israel withdrew from that area. They took their new land, burnt down all the food and vegetable producing facilities, and built staging areas for rocket and mortar launchers.

I'm not faulting Clinton on it, but peace can only come when both want it.

My Palestinian friend I have mentioned said that peace is only used to gather strength to fight again. Apparently this sort of deceit is ok because its what Muhammad did to capture Mecca in the first place. He pretended to want to live in peace and when the time was right attacked. I don't know the validity of this story, but it is what is being taught to the Palestinian children.

This is part of why I see no hope for any sort of real negotiated peace in the near future. Peace is nothing but a tool, not a goal for many of them.

There is more than one group of Palestinians, Ustwo. Yes, there are indoctrinated ones (of course, I've never met someone who wasn't indoctrinated by something), but a majority of them simply want to live without the constant back and fourth between Palestinian militants and Israel. The only reason Hamas was elected was because the people are more scared of Israel than they are of Hamas. While they want peace, they don't believe that Israel is willing to stop. Is Israel willing to stop? I have no clue. There hasn't been enough time of real peace to see, frankly. There's enough hatred on both sides for either to spark the war again. Israel has sparked some battles and Palestinian militants have sparked some battles. Each believes that they are right and that they deserve justice for *insert attack by the other side here*.

Peace between Palestine and Israel? It's as simple as an end to unrighteous vengeance on both sides.

In no particular order:

Iran
Guatemala
Chile
Nicaragua
Granada
Panama
Angola
Argentina

That's just a few... you could easily treble or quadruple the number of countries involved and find a lot more information about such actions, many against democratically elected governments, governments about to come into power legitimately or popular revolutionary governments.

What exactly surprises you that leading governments - not just the US - secretly and illegally supply weapons, stage coups, raise insurrections, aid despots, train death squads, etc, etc, etc...

This type of behaviour is not random. It has ends. Your welfare is not one of them.