We're very lucky to have Elana here who has a first-person view on the Israeli-Palestine conflict.  To keep things neat, I'm giving her her own thread.

I'm going to copy her previous posts over to avoid confusion.


Well about the wall, I can't disagree with it, Bethlehem is the home of many fanatics, perhaps you remember some years back when a large number barricaded themselves in the Church of the Manger, I’m not sure if that’s the correct name, the Church that is on the spot where it is believed that Christ was born. Bethlehem is too close to Jerusalem and various suburbs not to have strong security around it and a wall is the simplest way to do it.

Also Palestine isn't the only ones who have had to give up certain freedoms for safety, a person can't drive into a car park here without having the car and bags searched, the same goes for the fact that if a person wants to go into a shopping mall, a government building or even a restaurant or many other places that they have to allow themselves and any bags they are carrying be searched. The funny thing is I personally don't feel safe in places where they don't search people, I lived in Ireland for a few years and I never got over the feeling that I wasn't safe because they didn't search people. And need I mention the fact that almost everyone is drafted into the Army in Israel? But Israeli's are willing to live with these sacrifices for safety.

As for the wall being built on Palestain land, well I personally don't think it is right, much of the wall was built during Sharon's tenor as Prime Minister and there is many things he did that I feel was wrong.

Why would anyone want to invade Switzerland or Costa Rica, what vast natural resources do these countries have, do they threaten the borders of neighboring countries?

quote:
Vexen wrote:
Also, keep in mind that this is true of any extremist fanatics, regardless of religion (or the lack there of). The Crusades and Inquisitions, the Salem Witch Trials, McCarthyism, and the Virginia Tech shootings are proof enough of that. Not a point against what you're saying, but simply clarifying, as it does seem like you're pointing at just the obvious, and it could be easy to think you're just ganging up on the Muslims.

Nope I have no problems with Muslims, just the fanatics, when I lived aboard I had a couple of good friends who were Pakistani Muslims, we had no problems getting along and in fact had allot in common, as we shared many dietary traditions and other customs. I found many of the locals had almost no knowledge of Islam or Judaism and found the customary fasting during Ramadan very strange to say nothing of the traditions of ultra orthodox Jews, one person asked me if I had to be covered head to toe like many orthodox Muslim women, and they thought I was pulling their legs when I tried to explain what a kibbutz was to them.

quote:
katisara wrote:
Never instigate a war against another power, only fight a war someone else brought to you.

99% of the time I would agree with this rule, but as with most rules there are exceptions, and that exception was the Six Day War.


----------------------------------------------

There’s places up in north Israel that are being bombed daily but does it appear on the international news no, there’s a few towns that are basically living in their bomb shelters, I remember seeing a local report recently about how the children were spending Chanukah in the bomb shelters. Now I know I'm biased but I find it hard to understand people who think Israel is the big bully picking on Palestine, when it is the other way round, Israel is surrounded on all sides by countries with large populations. But in spite of that Israel is willing to share.

I know that America's war on Iraq is a very hot button topic in the US but frankly I personally am glad that Saddam was taken care of, I think he was building to be another Hitler and I'm glad he's dead. However the situation America now finds itself in is difficult, I'm sure most of the US brass would love to pullout of Iraq but if that happened the country would disintegrate into warring factions which would probably spill over onto Iraq's neighbors and considering how touchy they are it would start a war no one wants. Yes some terrible things happen, not everyone is angels and even the best people can break due to stress and make them do monstrous things, I don't think the army paper pushers understands that sometimes when you hear certain stories of some soldiers serving in Iraq.

Some things in America do worry me though about the current situation, how it seems it whittling down certain civil liberties that was part of the American ethos. How if you speak against the war or the government a person is thought to be un-American and a possible danger. How a person can be charged with terrorism and be held for an indefinite time without seeing a lawyer. There are other examples I could speak of but I don't know the whole issue, I know that if people want security there are certain sacrifices that have to be made but it does feel as if these changes are using security as an excuse.
This message was last edited by the GM at 23:45, Sat 29 Dec 2007.

re: Sacrifice - there's no question Israelis are sacrificing a lot.  I am glad I don't have to suffer the daily threat of bombs or terrorist attacks like that.  However there's a difference between forcing oneself to sacrifice for something and forcing someone else to.

I hadn't realized how long it had taken to build the wall.  I suppose that makes sense - if parts of the wall are already built, you take advantage of that instead of spending lots and lots of money building a new one.

You brought up civil liberties and how you're sad the US seems to be losing them, yet only one post before you mention how you have to consent to searches everywhere you go.  Freedom from being searched is considered a basic US liberty (not that you'd know visiting DC now).  How do you marry those two?



This whole topic is fascinating to me in part because, as an American, a lot of the details seem alien.  The conflict is based off of land claims going back literally to the time of Moses, some six thousand years ago?  Most Americans are lucky if we remember who we elected as president four years ago.  They say the US has no memory, but it would                                                                                                                                                                                                             appear this conflict is based off of literally ancient ties, and ideals of honor, pride and justice going back generations.  I feel like every time I sit down to study it I learn something new that completely shifts how I view the situation.

It is unfortunate there's a small group of individuals willing to kill innocents (which is in direct violation of the Koran, by the by) in order to try and push an extremist agenda, but overall from here it would seem both sides are making tremendous progress in an issue which really should take generations to solve.  Unfortunately, in the mean time, Israel continues to come across as the kicking dog...

(Alright, little boy demands attention, so I'll cut it short...)

Frankly, I've always sided on Israel on this.  I think it is a shame that the Palestinians get more aid then other people groups.  Having a peaceful demonstration is one thing, blowing up buses and malls is another.  The religious leaders that teach these things should also be held accountable.

The other thing that gets me is how Palestinians and the other Arab nations don't get along.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan  for example

How exactly is this a bad thing? Believe me the various Arab states get along fine in most situations.

Sorry if I’m a little defensive, as I have said i lived for a few years in Dublin, and there the sentiment is quite anti Israel and the US, and I got the feeling that much of Europe feels the same way. I do think that that is partly Israel's fault, when something happens here and representatives of the government are interviewed by CNN or such they often come off sounding defensive, I wish they would appoint Bibi Netanyah as the national spokesperson of the government as he is among the few that I have seen speak well when interviewed, I'm not a fan of his but he does have a silver tongue.

There is many things wrong with certain Israeli security policies in my opinion, bull dozing the home of the family of a suicide bomber is one of them. But did you know that when Saddam was in power he used to offer 25,000 dollars to the family of a suicide bomber and an additional 11,000 to any family member that lost their home because of the bombers actions?

There was a bomber a couple of years back that was stopped at one of the check points, he suffered from some type of retardation, he had been convinced that the only way he would ever have sex was if he blew himself up, thankfully he was stopped, the soldiers were able to stop him and managed to convince him to cut off the suicide harness.

Israel does a lot of good world wide that it never gets credit for, which I personally feel is a shame. Israel is almost always among the first countries to offer aid when there been a disaster, when Katrina devastated New Orleans many countries offered to help but were turned away because of security issues, but Israel was the only country allowed to help. Another thing Israel does is offer scholarships to deserving students in developing African nations, these aren't extra spots, there is no such thing here, people sometimes have to go aboard so that they can learn what they want especially in medicine.

I think it is a bad thing because the people groups that feel so displaced by having a jewish state in what used to be an islamic state can't find places in other countries.  If I was unhappy living in one part of the US, I'd go move to another part, why can't the Palestinians do this in the middle east?

Paulos, this goes back to what I said earlier.  Americans have no sense of history.  If someone told me to move out of my home, I'd grump and fuss, but I'd do it, and in twenty years I'd be like 'man, I sure am glad they got me before I'd paid a few more years into my mortgage.  I miss that place, but it's nice here.'  But I never felt I had any divine right to be there.  My parents never lived there, no children were born there.  It's just a house.

Imagine if someone forced you to change religions and it's a bit more accurate.  All of my family were born into my church, as far back as I care to name, all of them were baptized, all of them shared this central string no matter where they lived or what language they spoke.  It is promised to us by God and we're guaranteed a spot within it.  It's part of our identity.


Israeli security seems to be stuck between Iraq and a hard place (haha, I crack me up!)  You have a group of mostly peaceful Palestinians on one side, mostly peaceful Israelis on the other, both hosting extremist individuals.  An extremist Palestinian goes and kills a bunch of Israelis.  Israel can't politically ignore the situation, and so they have to pursue somehow.  However, in doing so there are oftentimes unfortunate casualties as these extremists are living in population centers, effectively using innocents as cover.  When an Israeli person shoots an innocent Palestinian, especially a child, the community doesn't blame the person the Israelis were pursuing, but blame Israel itself.  They remember when a bunch of Israelis burst in, starting shooting and killed little Timmy.  Next time the Israelis burst in, they're a lot more difficult and, unfortunately, more likely to get someone innocent shot again.

Let me correct one misunderstanding, the current conflict between Jews and Arabs is something that hasn't been going on hundreds of years, in fact in the past centuries Jews were often treated better in Muslim countries then in western ones that had many unfair rules against Jews. The present conflict goes back about ninty years or so, the people of both beliefs believe that we are decended from Abraham, Jews from Isac and Muslims from Ismael, there basicly being two differences in belief, Judasim believes the massiah is yet to come where as Christians and Muslims both believe the massiah has already come. The other difference of opinion is who Abraham was going to sacrifice.

My wife taught at a private Orthodox Jewish school.  One day, a student did a project interviewing the other students about the conflict with Palestine.  Several of the students said things like they should just kill the Palestinians or other such things.  This type of idea was immediately squelched (thankfully) by the director, who demonstrated that love and compassion was much better.

So I think it is a human issue as well as (or even more than) a religious one.  Passion gets in there and sometimes smothers a more god-like compassion.

___

On the other topic, there is a sect of Judaism, the "Messianic Jews," who also believe that the Messiah has come already.

When I was young and lived in England I also went to an Orthodox Jewish school, we were taught some things about Israel and to support it. You need o remember the children interviewed were children and children tend to see things as an eye for an eye type mentality. I'm not saying that there aren't those that share that belief but I believe the majority of Israeli's want peace, however you need two sides to be willing to make peace and while Hamas is in control of Palestine, Israel has no partner for peace.

I believe i know of the "Messianic Jews", they're the ones who believe the leader of their group was the massiah correct? And that he died a few years back right? If we're thinking of the same group they're not taken seriously here. But then there tends to be a bit of a rift between the orthodox and secular Jews here in Israel.

messianic jews are more along the lines that they follow the Torah, and jewish culture, but believe Jesus christ is the messiah, and that He did fulfill the prophecies.

So in that respect, they would be considered more christian, that following the jewish religion.

Over all, jewish and messianic jews should be near identical in faith, and the only difference should be when the Christ comes, whether it'll be His first or second time.

Ahhh them, yes I've heard of them, it seems to me as if they are returning to the original belief before the church was set up, personally I believe that Christ's (though I don't believe he was massiah, I think he might have been a talented healer) intent was to reform the leadership of the Jewish faith not start a new one.

Now for a bit of controvesy, what do you think of the whole Da Vinci Code thing? Yes I know it was simply a book but the story was built on a real scroll, I know there is a hole which prevent us from being sure as to what it said, but what do you think of it? Do you think it might be a fake? though I think there has been considerable proof saying it isn't, though many artifacts are a bit suspect currently because of the actions of one man who set out to defraud many private collecters and museams.

I assume the scroll was real, could be a real scroll with mistkes. Not sure. Either way, the Divinci Code is just a story. I'm not overly concerned with it in itself. Though I am aware that people walk away with a different impression then what the scroll may have originally said.

Shesh that was a quick reply, lol.

Well might I say that I have always thought it strange that Jesus wasn't married, at that time men of his age were usually married in the Jewish culture that he wasn't is very unusual.

Ok what about the so called Scroll of Judas, have you heard of it? If so what do you think of it?

The short answer is this, what about Jesus is usual?

The long answer is that the new testament mentions Jesus's father, mother, siblings, but mentions nothing about a wife.

Also there was a jewish group called the Essenes who remained unmarried by choice. This is to point out while not typical, it was not unusual either. There's no command to be married, that was just the culture, and Jesus made quite a few changes away from culture, didn't He?

I don't know anything about the scroll of Judas. Anything that stands out?

Normally I'd put this in a new topic, since whether Jesus had kids or not has very little relation to the Israeli-Palestine conflict, but it would seem the answers are coming out pretty fast :P

We discussed the Da Vinci code thing a few years back.  On Heath's recommendation, I read Holy Blood, Holy Grail (the book Da Vinci code is based on).  However it has later come to light that much of the basic material used in both books was falsified by a fellow who apparently was trying to set himself up to become the new king of France or something crazy like that.  It was gobbled up by journalists who were more anxious to get a neat story than to do actual fact-checking.  There's little, if any evidence supporting the story.

The Testament of Judas?  I believe it was a scroll written by Christians, probably a gnostic sect, well after the death of Christ (barring the 'gnostic' part, that describes most of the books of the New Testament, however).  I haven't read it, but I don't believe it's divinely inspired right now.  If you're interested in that stuff, I'd highly recommend reading the Book of Thomas, which is a fascinating study.

To get things back towards the main topic here, here's my thoughts on the Israel-palestine conflict:  Both sides have committed many horrible acts, and continue to do so pretty much every day.  Both use the past actions of the other side to justify their actions, rather than trying to figure out a way forward.  Granted, in both sides there are a lot of people who want peace, and who would be happy to find a compromise, and it's a comparatively small group who keep the fires going.  However, those peaceful majorities don't seem to do a very good job of stopping the harmful minorities.  The situation is pretty messed up at this point, and a lot of people on each side have become so angry at the other, that often it seems unlikely to me that there will be a solution any time soon.  If there is to be one, I think it'll have to have some of the following properties:

First and foremost, both sides will have to accept the other's right to exist.  Israel will have to accept that there should be a palestinian state (which I think it has accepted for the most part), and the palestinians will have to accept the Israel will exist (which most palestinians seem to accept, but Hamas in particular does not, which is a big stumbling block).  That would go a long way right there.

The borders of the two states seems like they should be pre '67 borders, as that's more or less what the world seems to think is fair.  That means Jewish settlers in palestine would need to be moved out, ideally with the option to immigrate from Isreal into palestine and return to their settlements, but that would have to be up to the palestinians, and if they don't want the settlers, the settlers would just have to swallow that pill.  The land simply doesn't legitimately belong to them.

The right of return is a non-starter for Israel, as it would put at risk it's right to exist.  A sudden influx of palestinians to Israel (which is democratic), could cause a political change of an existential nature, so palestinians just have to swallow the pill that not everyone is going to get to go back to their former homes.  That said, the palestinians must be fairly compensated for land and property lost.  I think an unbiased (as possible) third party should be employed to determine the fair market value for all property lost.  Isreal would be ultimately responsible for making that payment, though I'm guessing international contributions would probably make up a large part of it.

Damage from any continued attacks from the palestinians would have to be covered by the palestinian government, so that there would be an incentive to stop them.  Israel would have to agree to leave policing of attacks to the palestinians.  I think an international third party might be required to help deal with this, as Israelis would likely be very suspicious that the palestinians were policing their own to the best of their ability.

Both sides would have to set asside ancient and/or religious claims to the land.  That kind of question simply isn't something that can be negotiated.  If God is really on one side or the other, let Him sort it out Himself.  Until that point, humans need to do what they can, and that means not assuming any divine rights that the other side doesn't accept.

Palestinian prisoners who have not already been convicted of crimes would probably have to be returned to the palestinian government's custody, which probably means set free in many cases.  That's a pill Israel will just have to swallow.  After the palestinian state forms, any further criminals arrested in Isreal would go into Israeli custody and be dealt with by Israeli law.

Hmm, probably a lot more should go into that, but that's what I've got at the moment.  For a liberal, I'd say I'm fairly sympathetic towards Israel, though not so much as the average american probably would be.  I definately don't like that Isreal receives more of our foreign aid than any other country.  I think there are many other places in the world (and many places in the US for that matter), that need it more at the moment.

I just wanted to say, this seems like the best idea I've seen in a long time.

They believe Jesus is the Messiah.  They are almost like Jewish Christians.  I tend to find that these Jews are most like the LDS church in many ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism

Ok lets reply to this on a point by point summery.


Israel acknowledged the Palestine state a while back, it is most of the Arab states that refuse to acknowledge Israel’s existence.


Setting the clock back and redrawing the map is impossible now, much of the territory taken in '67 was taken for security issues, those security issue still exist thirty years later. However did you miss seeing on the news last year that many settlers were relocated and their settlements dismantled? Israel did give back a lot of land and those places are now Palestine, in fact there is a Palestinian town just a ten minute drive from where I live, Israeli's aren't allowed to enter, the majority of Arab towns and villages became Palestinian territory.


Your right in no way or how would Israel ever allow the right of return to the Palestinians, harsh I know but Tycho summed up the reasons why pretty well. Your right about the Palestinians being compensated if they have proof that their family formerly owned the land or property. (That sound all to like the Swiss banks and I would rather Israel not be compared to those thieves that call themselves bankers.) I'm just wondering who has an odd billion or so to give us to pay the Palestinians.


That is a difficult point because as of now the Palestinians have done no policing of the terrorist unless it is directed internally. One thing the western world has difficulty understanding is the overall mentality over here, the Arab nations tend to have a very macho outlook, Israel can't always allow others to defend our country because if we do it will be seen as weakness and that will be extending an invitation to anyone to attack us, and frankly Israel doesn't always do so well when it does allow others to defend what is ours. On paper having a third party to police things sounds fine but in reality I don't think it would work. Also might I say that this sounds a bit like the peace plan discussed in the West Wing? (TV show if someone doesn't know)


Easier said then done unfortunately, personally i would definitely agree to Old Jerusalem, Hebron and other religious hot spots being declared neutral territory, however that isn't taking into account the Ultra Orthodox over here who have a frightening amount of political clout. For those that don’t understand Israeli politics I'll explain briefly, Israel has a coalition government what that means is as follows instead of having two main political parties, Israel has many, anyone can set up a party here all you need is the votes, believe me there been some nutty ones, The Taxi Cab Coalition and the Marijuana Party are just two examples, though I think the Maryjane party actually got three seats....lol
Anyway in the last couple of elections Shas the Ultra Orthodox party has been gaining more and more power, last election Shas came out as the third strongest party, a very strong third, so they tend to vote in a block and no amount of political bribery would get them to give up their claim. These guys are nuts they still cant get over the fact that Mosque of the Rock is where it is, they want to start building the third Temple right now, they were shlapping big rocks up to the gates of Old Jerusalem just this summer. They consider anyone who is not orthodox as non Jewish, hell one of their main religious leaders once said on radio that those that died in the Holocaust deserved it as they obviously weren't devote enough, does that sound like sanity to you?


That is something Israel is learning to deal with we are releasing them a bit at a time, though we have still haven't gotten back our soldier who was kidnapped a couple of years back.


I was wondering when someone would bring this point up, allow me to clear up a few misunderstandings. To my knowledge Israel receives three billion from the US in foreign aid, however there is a condition attached to that money, Israel can only spend that money in the US on American products, so basically America is giving Israel money to help improve the American economy. I don't know if Israel receives more foreign aid then other countries, but I doubt it. America also gives aid to Israel's neighbors, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, I'm not sure about Syria, and they used to give aid to Palestine as well, at least that was before the Palestinians voted a terrorist organization into power. Each of these countries ges aid from the US to the tune of two billion dollars each. Now as to who should get aid or not and whether money should be spent on aid or not when there are so many that need help in the USA that’s something that you might want to bring up with your local politicians, just remember it's in America's interest to help Israel be as strong as possible, Israel is America's only real ally in the area, you might mention the Saudi's but they are hostile allies at best, and the people there are not happy about the American presence in their country.

Whew that was a long post, you know there's an old Yiddish saying, get three Jews together and you'll get five different arguments, that very much applies in Israel but it's more like ten different arguments. :)

Yeah, don't disagree with you there.  But, I think it's important to make sure that's acknowledge by both sides up front.  Until it is, not much progress can be made.


If it's truly impossible, Palestine must be compensated for any and all land lost, ideally with land from other places in Israel.  If it's just really inconvenient (which I think will be the case in most instances), it needs to go back.  It's not going to be an easy thing to get peace, and both sides are going to have to give things up to get it.  I did see some settlers being displaced, and thought it was a great start.  But there's still lots of settlements, and if I'm not mistaken, even some new ones being built.


I'd actually guess that money to compensate palestinians for lost land could be rounded up from quite a few countries, if they thought it was going to bring about a peaceful resolution.  The US, the EU, probably some Arab states as well.


I think the macho issue is part of the problem, and needs to be addressed head on.  I think any nation that attacked israel while it was implementing an internationally recognized resolution to the problem would not be looked upon well by the rest of the world.  I realize the worry about letting the palestinians or a third party do the policing, but I think it's the only viable long term solution.  It goes back to the right to exist issue.  If there is to be a palestinian state, Israel can't feel like it has the right to police it.


Nope, doesn't sound sane.  And as long as people like that have power, I don't see much hope for a peaceful resolution.  Again, it goes back to the right to exist idea.


True, there are strings attached.  But other countries (and other places in the US) aren't getting even that.


It does.  By quite a significant amount.  Check out
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=586921
for the figures.


Don't disagree with anything there, really.  My point was mostly that I think there are places in the world that would probably be better places for us to send our aid money than Israel, largely because I think Israel is really doing pretty well for itself compared to a lot of places, and probably doesn't need our help nearly as much as some other places do.

Probably because it is such a significant country in the region.  It is a cornerstone of the Middle East, and one of the few countries that is a complete and true ally to much of the Western world (primarily the U.S.).  So whereas we walk on eggshells with Iran, we know we can trust Israel, and security and safety to Israel is important in our foreign relations with that area.  I think Bush and many past presidents have spoken on this in the past.

I noticed this comment on Tycho's link:

My that sounds very preachy, for your information it isn't because it's inconvenient it is for real reasons, but then you don't know what it can be like living here. Israel has proven repeatedly that it is willing to give up land for peace, are you forgetting the Siani paninsula and the Egyptians? A lot of settlers were displaced, though not all, yes theres still settlements, and yes new ones are being built but again that is against the wishes of the government, many of these settlements are built by the religous right. I hardly think that the people of America have a right to comment on compensation, what happened to the compensation promised to newly freed slaves after America's civil war, weren't they promised a mule and a certain amount of land? And what about the American Indians, have you given them back their rightful land? No, but then in many cases your government doesn't even trust their leaders to use their own money wisely.


Maybe you should tell the Arab states not to be so macho see how well that goes down, your simplifying complex issues that is part of there religious and national makeup. If Palestine policed it's citizens Israel wouldn't need to, do you really think Israel likes being portayed as a monster in the news when it needs to respond to an attack, or perhaps we should just ignore the fact when we know that bombs and guns are being stockpiled to use against Israeli's. As for third party, like I said before when others do the policing Israeli's usually end up dead, need i mention Munich? Why should Israel depend on another party to keep Israel secure? Unless you didn't know Israel is the country other countries come to when they need advise on security including America.

As for the money Israel receives well I can't apologise for it but I'm sure America gets plenty in return, Israel has a great deal of R and D going on militarily and in civilian circles, I'm sure America gets it's share in the developing technology. There is also the Mosad, which is known as one of the best intellegence agencies in the world.

Yeah, america dropped the ball on those things, big time.  They're some of the most shameful moments in our country's history.  I'm not saying the US is perfect, not by a long shot.  I'm not even saying it's better than Israel (though I'm not saying it's worse--it's not something I've actually given much thought to either way).  I'm not telling you what Israel should do to be like the US, or earn the US's respect or anything like that.  I'm saying, this is what Israel needs to do if they really want peace.  And it's not going to be easy, and it's going to involve giving up things that they'd rather not give up.  Saying "well, the US did this, and the US did that" is pointing fingers at others in unrelated situations, and not looking at the current situation.  You can feel that I have no right to offer suggestions on how to resolve the problem, because I'm not Israeli, and fair enough.  But a big reason (perhaps the single biggest reason) that the problem keeps going on and on is that both sides are only concerned about the bad things the other side did.  When it comes to admitting and fixing the bad things they've done, they instantly go on the defensive, and try to justify what they've done.  "Well, they did this first" or "We already done this little bit" and the like.  Israel seems to just want palestine to change, and the palestinians just want israel to change.  If there is to be any progress, both sides have to look seriously into the mirror, and say "yes, our side has done a lot of very bad things.  Whatever our reasons for doing so, it needs to stop, and it needs to be fixed."  I'll be the first to admit that Israel has done a lot more of that than palestine so far.  But they haven't done it 100% yet.


The reason Israel should rely on another party to keep Israel secure, is because the things Israel does to keep itself secure are part of the reason that Israel needs security.  It's a cycle, and if there is to be peace, that cycle has to be broken.  I think you could probably convince me fairly easily that Israel is better than any other country at protecting its citizens.  But that's just in the short term.  The things they do for that short term security upset a lot of people, and create new terrorists.  Again, it's just one of those pills that I think Israel has to swallow if there's going to be any progress.  This is a hard situation, and both sides are going to have go give up things they don't want to give up.  They're going to have to accept certain risks and compromises that they don't feel are ideal.  It's not an issue of who's right and who's wrong, and it's not an issue of who will provide the best security.  It's an issue of what needs to be done to achieve peace.  If you prefer the status quo, fair enough, I think there are plenty of other people who do to.


Oh, no apology needed or expected.  I don't blame Israel for it at all.  And I have no problem with money going to Israel in general.  It just makes me a little uncomfortable that we give so much money to a comparatively well off country when we give so little to countries suffering much more (and to which we've promised to give money but don't).

Like I said before I don't agree with all the steps Israel has taken to make it's people secure but you have to admit that they seemed to be working currently. Also you must realize that it takes two to make peace, Israel has done a lot in the name of peace and is willing to do more but right now the Palestinian leaders aren't really interested in peace. Like I said before Israel was willing to give the Palestinians nearly everything they wanted, there are basicly two main sticking points which I personally cant see being resolved. The rght to return for Palestinians and old Jerusalem and the other holy sites. You can't say we didn't offer them some of Jerusalem as we did offer them east Jerusalem though of course they wanted more. Making peace is a matter of give and take, we're willing to give but the Palestinians aren't going to get everything they want to expect it is unrealistic.

I'm sorry if I sounded dogmatic but your tone was a little provoking, I wasn't comparing Israel to the US just saying that Israel is doing the best it can in the current situation. You just have to understand that some of the things your suggesting is like offering up our throat to the knife, do I wish it wasn't the case of course but this is what we have to deal with.

More or less agree with you on this.  Like I said, I'm fairly sympathetic to Israel in this situation, and feel they've made more effort than the palestinians have.  Though, being in the better position currently, I also think the burden to act first does rest more on their shoulders.  So yeah, Israel has offered a lot, and done many different things.  But I don't think they've done everything needed.  I will say that at times when I've been extra frustrated with the whole situation, I've thought Israel should just unilaterally withdraw, and get completely out of palestine, close the borders and say "there, we're out, you deal with it."  I don't think it'd be the best solution, but at times I think waiting for an effective palestinian government to come into power to have a fruitful negotiation is getting things nowhere.


I think that's a great analogy, and honestly, it is more or less what I'm suggesting.  In order to have peace, the two sides need to show trust, even to the exent of putting oneself in a position of danger.  I don't think Israel would be destroyed by doing this, but I fully admit that it would probably suffer more attacks in the short run from it.  I do think a bit of "turn the other cheek" is necessary for things to get anywhere, though I realize that Jesus' words might not carry as much weight with you as they might for others here, especially coming from an atheist!  An "eye for an eye" has its place, but in this situation we're in "an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye..." already.

If the punching ever stops, someone will have gotten in the last punch.  I think one side is going to have to accept being the one that got punched last without retaliating in order for there to be peace.  If neither side is willing to take on that role, the fists will just keep flying.  Because Israel has more top-down control, I think it's in a better position to be the "bigger man" and let the other side have the last word in order to stop the cycle.  I'd be just as happy for the palestinians to play that role, but I don't think their leaders have enough control over their people to reign them in completely.

You speak of the attacks as if they are nothing but I think there is an element to them you don't understand or simply don't know about. During the last cycle of violence many of the attacks were geared towards children. Bombing the pizzaria in Jerusalem at a time when many school kids were there as it was a favorite hangout, targeting buses at a time when kids were going home from school, there was also a car bomb that was stopped thanks to the security guard at the school. It's one thing to target adults we know theres risks to living in Israel but to target children is something else, and proves that Hamas and other of their ilk dont want peace.

I know the attacks are horrible.  I don't claim to have ever experienced anything so bad, but I'm not trying to play down the evil involved in them, nor the impact on the Israeli people.  I agree that Hamas doesn't want peace.  But there are a lot of palestinians who do.  And if Israel wants peace, they're not going to get it by killing people.  Organizations like Hamas feed off the reprisals that their attacks bring.  Reacting to them makes them stronger, not weaker.  I'm not saying Israel should take it on the chin because Hamas don't deserve to be hit back at.  I'm saying Israel should take it on the chin because that's the only way to beat Hamas and achieve peace.

I believe that the primary reason that Palestine resorts to terrorism is because, from their point of view, it works. After all, Israel was formed because of Jewish terrorist attacks against British and Arabic targets. So, the way the Palestinians see it, if one group can what they want through targeting civilians, why shouldn't they be able to?

I don't condone terrorism, by the way, but I don't believe that Israel's hands are any cleaner than the Palestinians in this tragic affair of the last sixty years.
This message was last edited by the player at 12:08, Wed 09 Jan 2008.

How many Israeli suicide bombers are there? Defending one self should be considered vastly different then trying to kill innocent people like those terrorists. When you have so many countries attacking you in numerous wars, people are going to be killed in the process.

I really do think Tycho is right.  The goal of terrorism in this case is to escalate the conflict and keep it continually militarized.  Hamas WANTS Israel to react with a military strike, since a militarized strike against any part of Palestine will further sour relations.  Hamas isn't playing a game about combat, even though combat is a primary tool, it's playing a game about perceptions.  If Israel doesn't realize this, they may win each battle, but they'll win the war.

I could say that the Jews fighting against the British were freedom fighters and not terrorists but some would say that that is simply samantics, I don't agree. There were 4 groups that worked for the creation of Israel, the main group  Ha'gana which means to guard concerned itself in teaching it's people how to defend themselves and the Jewish people in Palestine and smuggling as many Jews into Israel during that most terrible of times. Yes there was an extreme group Called the Stern Gang but they did not target women and children but British soldiers, who weren't even supposed to be in Palestine by '47, at least that is what I remember from history class, I need to check my facts, but I remember that the British Mandate was supposed to end in the early forties, it didn't because of WWII. Yes some terrible things were done, there was only one Gandi, anyway Gandi's methord wouldn't have worked for the Jews of Palestine not with the phrase 'lambs to the slaughter' ringing in their ears from the Holocaust.

katisara speaks of a game about perceptions but frankly I find it hard to believe that any American can defend the actions of the Palestinians at times, how can the American people have forgotten the Palistinian reaction to the news of what happed on 9/11.

Yes there was an extreme group Called the Stern Gang but they did not target women and children but British soldiers, who weren't even supposed to be in Palestine by '47, at least that is what I remember from history class

Are you trying to tell me that the ninety-three people in the King David Hotel were all British Soldiers, when we know for a historical fact that they weren't?

Defending one self should be considered vastly different then trying to kill innocent people like those terrorists.

Blowing up a hotel full of innocent people is defending yourself?

No I didn't say that the Stern Gang was an extreme faction and every other group condemded their actions at the King David Hotel, and I believe that shortly after that that group was phased out. But if you know about the King David then you know it was a base of operations for the British and that they were the worst hit by the attack.

Im not going to defend that attack, there is no defence but the British were not blameless either when they pulled out they handed over a fortress that guarded the only rout to Jerusalem to the Arabs basicly leaving a whole city to starve. And need I mention how they restricted immigration of Jews from Europe to Palestine during the '40, that action alone was criminal.

But it wasn't masterminded by the Stern Gang, it was an Irgun operation (the political predecessor of the Herud and then Likud parties in Israel), and commanded by Menachem Begin, who would later become the Prime Minister of Israel. This was not an act of an ostracized extremist group.

True but if you don't think Begin didn't suffer repercusions your wrong, besides that action was an aberation not the norm as you know. Most of the defence forces were finding ways to smuggle people and arms into the country.

Elana, from the way you speak, I get the impression that what you want to see is not a compromise, but an Israeli victory.  I also get the impression that you don't feel that Israel has anything to apologize for--you seem to feel every action taken on its behalf has either been justified, or carried out by some other group that Israel needn't apologize for.  You tend to focus on "Palestine does this, Palestine does that!" type arguments to justify Israeli actions, rather than looking towards what actions will bring about peace.  You're more concerned about who's in the right, than what the right path should be.  From what I've seen, as long as that's the mentality, the fighting will go on forever.

That's not true Tycho, she's said that there has been plenty of things done by her nation that she regrets.

I can sympathize with her, if someone was living 50 miles away and killing children by the busload though I won't be pissed and want them dead.  Perhaps it is because we see things through the eyeglass of the media that we tend to be so sympathetic to the Palestinians and now the jews.

I'm not saying who is morally right.  I'm talking about who is effective.  The Palestinian extremists who are using terrorist methods are going to win as long as Israel enforces its laws in foreign countries.  Every time a rocket goes from Palestine into Israel, that's a very minor victory at a significant cost (for Palestine).  Every time Israel goes into Palestine with guns drawn, that is a major victory at little cost.

You say that Israel must do this to protect its image.  Well unfortunately that would mean Israel is caught in a war that will literally last as long as the area is occupied or until technology allows for true pin-point strikes.  Both of those are going to take quite a while.

But ultimately, if you and the rest of Israel are willing to accept this eternal war, there is nothing I can do about it.  Clearly not all of Israel is willing to suffer that though, since they have accepted a few punches in order to break the loop.  They've shown more reserve about going into Palestine in order to catch terrorists.  We just need to keep that progress going (at this point, especially on the Palestinian side).

Honestly we're seeing the same thing in Iraq right now.  The US invaded on the understanding that there were nuclear weapons there that would be given to terrorists to attack the US.  However, once we went in there and shot a lot of stuff up, all of a sudden a bunch more people were polarized against us and more people became terrorists.  It's a very similar situation (although slightly different).  The US MUST create an orderly, effective society or Iraq will view the US as invaders who just broke everything.  In order for the terrorists 'to win', they don't need to kill more US troops, they just need to make society disorderly, rife with conflict and dangerous.  That's why the normal military mentality of 'they shot at us, let's find them and kill them' would lead to us losing in Iraq.  The new mentality of 'let us create a government, promote peace, defend the basic utilities and provide appropriate care' is the only way to find success.  It's a completely different mindset, one in which bullets really don't count for very much.

I didn't say I wasn't sympathetic with the jews (or more accurately, Israelis of whatever race or religion).  I most certainly am.  But I'm not all that concerned with who's right and who's wrong at this point.  What I'm more concerned about is fixing the problem.  Both sides have all the justification they'll ever need to kill one another.  Both sides have done plenty of bad things, and continue to do plenty of bad things.  Both sides view the people doing the worst things as representative of the other side, but view the people on their side doing the worst acts as fringe groups.  If you think about it terms of "they did X, so I need to do Y to get back at them," the cycle will just keep going.  Like I said, anyone coming at the problem trying to obtain victory will not get peace (unless they plan to entirely wipe the other side out, which I hope we can agree is not right).  People trying pick sides and say "we should support Israel" or "we should support Palestine" want one side to win, which implies the other has to lose.  I want a peace.  I want both sides to own up to the wrongs they've done, accept the other's right to exist, and take the difficult actions needed to curb the extremists on their own side (rather than trying to stop the extremists on the other side).  I've said already that I feel Israel has done a better job of it than has palestine has, but "we've done more than them" is not a legitimate reason not to do the rest.  "They haven't done what they were supposed to" is not a reason to stop doing what you need to achieve peace.

Tycho your wrong and if you think I sound like that I would hate for you to hear one of the settlers who many dont want any compromise with the Palesinians. Originally I was very left wing which over here means a person wants peace, however my belief altered somewhat when Arafat said no to the peace deal, it made me and most of the majority of the left realize that the extreme Palestinian groups don't want peace.

Yes I can sound a bit strong at times but then I think almost anyone would if they lived in Israel and had to live with the reality of the situation.

I think Israel needs a sign from Palestine that it is really serious about peace I think that if we did get a signal the world would be amazed what Israel would be willing to do for peace.

Unfortunately, if Palestine isn't interested in peace, the only way for Israel to get it is through force of arms applied with extreme prejudice.  Probably not the best solution.  So I certainly agree, as long as Palestine is unwilling to partake in the process, there's nothing Israel can reasonably do.

I have heard settlers, and their views turn my stomach.  They're every bit as hateful as the radicals in hamas.  But I think it's Israel's responsibility to curb their efforts, just as it's palestine's responsibility to curb the efforts of terrorists.

You're free to wait for the other side to make sacrifices for peace before you do, but you should be prepared to wait a long, long time.  I hope it comes, but I don't see why anyone would expect the palestinians to blink first.  Every time Israel blows up a palestinian building, more non-terrorists become terrorists.  More moderates become extremists.  It's your country, not mine, and I can't have any real influence on the politics.  If Israel wants the status quo, the status quo it shall have.

That may be but something you seem to be ignoring is the fact that Israel could be willing to flip sumersaults for peace, if it doesn't have a coresponding partner to work on making that dream a reality then it wont happen.

As for a signal that Palestine was ready it probably wouldn't even have to be a major thing, I think many Israeli's would take it as a sign of good faith if Gilad Shalit, the kidnapped soldier was returned to us without Israel making huge concessions, even if it was only to get his remains which I think to most peoples minds is the best case senario now adays.

And what if Shalit isn't held by the Palestinian government, but by an extremist group which would like to jump somersaults to make sure Israel and Palestine never make peace?

I would say there are corresponding partners for peace.  The trouble is that there are also people who don't want peace, like Hamas (who, if I'm not mistaken, are the ones who hold the soldier?).  If you wait for such groups to go away on their own, again, you'll be waiting a long time.  I think Fatah, for all it's many faults, has shown signs of wanting to create a lasting peace.  They currently don't have much power over the population, and they're certainly no angels by any strech of the imagination, but it's a partner nonetheless.  Hamas' goal is to prevent peace.  Likewise (though in a less violent way), the settlers and far-right of Israel don't seem to want peace.  But if the majority of people who do want peace let those extremist groups determine when peace can occur, it never will.

The problem there is that yes, while there are small groups interested in peace, if they have no power, there isn't much they can do.  The Palestinians voted Hamas into power democratically.  What are you supposed to do?  Say democracy is wrong, set up a monarchy and go from there?  If the people aren't interested in peace, there isn't a lot Israel can do to change that.

That's true, and it's a bad situation.  But I think the answer isn't to instate a monarchy, or to say democracy is wrong, but to work with Fatah (or whoever else wants peace), and agree to some kind of conditional compromise (ie, If you regain power then the following agreement comes into place..), that gives them something to hold up at the next election and say "elect us, and we'll get this agreement."  If the palestinians still don't want it, then they probably don't want peace, but my guess is that isn't what would happen.

At the moment, with a divided palestine, it seems like you can work with Fatah in the west bank, while Hamas does it's thing in gaza.  If an agreement can be made with Fatah, that results in a better life for those in the west bank, people will see that peace is preferable to violence, and be less likely to favor Hamas.  Again, not an ideal situation, but I think you have to do whatever you can.  Find the people who want peace, and work to empower them.  Not by usurping the elected government, but by giving them what they need to win within the system.

I think Fatah's likely responce would be to say 'wait until we're back in power.' The Palestinian's would have to be blind not to see the advantages of working with Israel, the majority of employment opertunities, I think something like 80% is in Israel, all that ended because of security concerns causing real hardship in Palestine. When Hamas came into power they lost all the aid they had gained from Europe and the USA and it's a fact that Israel would help develop the infrustructure of Palestine because in spite of what many people would like Israel and Palestine have a symbiotic relationship, at least it would be like that if there was trust between the two countries.

I'm thinking we're talking about two different things here. I was talking about Israel, and was speaking of how Israel needs to defend itself, and how that's vastly different to a terrorist that purposely attempts to kill innocents.

This message was deleted by the player at 22:31, Sat 12 Jan 2008.

I don't think that makes sense. Israel demonstrated to Palestine how to be terrorists?

This message was deleted by the player at 23:36, Sat 12 Jan 2008.

Wow there's a post garenteed to annoy the hell out of a person

Are you denying that the King David Hotel Bombing and other similar events occurred?

I read your words was a mushroom cloud of an atom bomb, there are a few things worst to say it's true but usually you have to be a Nazi or a member of the KKK to voice such an opinion, so what you want to see me start foaming at the mouth?

So, statement of historical facts (mainstream Israeli political groups were involved in terrorist acts) is now racism. I don't think you understand that not liking Israel is not the same thing as antisemitism. I have nothing against the Jewish faith, I just despise the method by which Israel was created.

I don't think that makes sense. Israel demonstrated to Palestine how to be terrorists?

Have you been paying attention to what I've been posting? The King David Hotel Bombing? Israeli political groups, and not just fringe ones, were engaged in acts of terrorism prior to the founding of Israel.
This message was last edited by the player at 03:48, Fri 11 Jan 2008.

So Israel was engaged in terrorism before it was Israel? That still doesn't make sense.

So Israel was engaged in terrorism before it was Israel? That still doesn't make sense.

There are few things that irritate me more that someone being pedantic.

Especially when its poor pedantry. Do you know what the word zionism means?
This message was last edited by the player at 04:15, Fri 11 Jan 2008.

I think she was trying to say the post came across as inflammatory, something designed for an emotional response.

That reads as it's not the religion, it's just that you want to judge all the Israeli's for the actions of few.

The sense I get is that Elana is looking for you to point out that terrorism is wrong on all accounts, and should not be done to Israel or any other party.

I would like to say that I do not think Falkus is racist, some think that is what I meant by my earlier post it is not, he is entitled to have a different opinion from me, in fact that's why I think people post on this board so that they can learn things from people with different opinions than their own.

Yes I know what zionism means, zion is another name for Israel, the bible would often say 'in the land of zion' when refering to Israel. So to be a zionist is someone who believes in the dream of the state of Israel and works to make that dream a reality.

Trust in the Lord understood what I meant by my earlier posts, now let me go into some details. The bombing at the King David Hotel was terrible, 93 people died and it is a terrible stain on the history of Israel, I definately do no't think it was the right thing to do but there are other factors that can give a person some understand as to what drove them to do it, I am not excusing it however. But think back to that time WWII had just happened, very few Jewish families went untouched by the horror of the Holocaust, very few countries took action to stop it from happening, very few allowed the Jews that tried to escape entrance into their countries. The British so as not to offend the Arabs allowed only a small number to enter Israel legally. That is but a few examples, it was a time of great bitterness and a feeling amoung the Jews in Palestine that they were alone and that no one would help them claim the land they had rebuilt. The bombing at the King David Hotel was the actions of a few, it was not sanctioned by the main defence groups, I don't know all the facts I wasn't there but look at what is known historicly, Manachem Begin one of the leaders of the Irgun with others planned that terrible deed, did they think such a plan would be widely accepted? No of course not, he went to extremests to carry out the plan. Do I wish Israel had been born of passive resistance like India? Of course, but frankly I think to much had happened to think it might have been possible.

The trouble here, Elana, is that you say things like "It's inexcusable but..." and then give some excuses.  You say "It's totally unjustified, but..." and then give a justification.  You say "I'm not defending it, but..." and then give a defense.  This is pretty much the same thing the palestinians are doing.  They'll say something like "I don't agree with terrorism, but look at our situation!  What else can we do?" or "I think suicide bombers are wrong, but the Israelis are oppressing us!"  I'm guessing that's not how you're trying to sound, but that's how you're coming off.  You agree it's wrong, and that it shouldn't have happened, but then you backpeddal and try to justify it with the political situation at the time, or point to others who were worse.  I think both sides need to be bigger than that.  Both sides need to stand up and say "We've done some bad things.  Full stop.  We shouldn't have done them.  What can we do to move forward?"  No justifications, no excuses, to explanations.  Just admit it was wrong, commit to not doing it again, and move things forward.  Again, I think Israel has done a better job of this than Palestine, but still need to do more.

So people know their history, from WWI until 1948, the British held all of what is currently Israel and Palestine.  In 1946, the British government put many of its government offices in the southern wing of the King David Hotel, a luxury hotel in the heart of what would become Israel.  A group of pro-Israeli Jewish terrorists (or freedom fighters, the terms really are basically interchangeable) went in and blew up half of the hotel, killing 91 and injuring another 45.  I'm not sure how many were government workers as opposed to just innocent people who happened to be in the way.

The former Israeli Prime Minister attended the 60th anniversary celebrating the bombing in 2006, however the Israeli state has officially condemned the action.

During the build-up towards the creation if Israel, Jewish extremists practiced a series of acts of pre-meditated terrorism, including assassination of unarmed civilians and bombings of primarily government-owned sites.  When Israel was officially created, these attacks stopped.  This is all accepted history and I encourage it to research it yourself.  They were definitely extremists, however, and there actions were, AFAIK, always officially condemned by Jewish authorities.

I don't see that. She did state it was terrible, and inexcusable. I think she just went into some background. I think that's different than making excuses. It's like admitting one is guilty, and then presenting your side in court so that leniency can be had because it wasn't the same as mass murdering one person after another for pleasure.

That's just what I'm talking about.  Asking for leniency.  Saying "sure I did something bad...but it wasn't as bad as this other thing someone else did!"  It's downplaying the action, and trying to reduce or avoid the full judgement.  It's a natural reaction, but it's part of the problem.  Both sides do it, so I don't mean to be picking on Elena too harshly here.

Isreal isn't on trial; if it were, it'd be guilty (likewise for palestine).  So treating the situation like a trial, and trying to get leniency for the past misdeeds isn't the way forward.  There's no chance of either side telling the other "I guess what you did was okay given the circumstances."  That's simply not going to happen.  So looking for that kind of response is counter productive, because it downplays the very real, and very justified anger the other side has over the action.

Put it this way, when you apologize, do you say "I'm sorry I did X...but you really did sort of bring it on yourself, you know.  I mean, I shouldn't have done it, but I never would have if you hadn't done Y first." OR do you say "I'm sorry I did X, and I promise not to do it again."  One does a lot more good than the other, I hope you'll agree.  From both sides we need more of the latter and less of the former.

But Israel didn't do the bombing, an extremist terrorist group by the sounds of it. I was trying to point out that it appears Elana was discussing the reasoning, not the lack of guilt.

But Israel didn't do the bombing, an extremist terrorist group by the sounds of it

No, it was carried out by the Irgun, the political predecessor to the Herut, and then the Likud parties in Israel, and the attack itself was ordered by Menachem Begin, later the Prime Minister of Israel, and one of the more popular ones. It was not a fringe group of lunatics plotting in a cellar somewhere, this was a mainstream political group that has shaped Israel's politics ever since the country was founded. That's what disturbs me about the formation of Israel.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:46, Sat 12 Jan 2008.

Actually, that is rather interesting. I did some more reading on it as well. It appears the irgun bombers went into the hotel, and warned the kitchen staff to flee. The bombs were set up under the british offices. They then left apparently settling off a small explosion outside on the streets to keep the people walking by away, and then called the hotel to let them know to get out of the building, as they planted a bomb in it.  Apparently the British refused to leave.

Not saying that the killing of people is ok if they won't leave the area, but I have to say that is vastly different then the terrorism going on today. Where a bomber will try to go after civilians, and with no warning. The message is clear, it is about trying to kill.

This whole situation is ugly. As with nearly any war in history, there are atrocities on both sides of the fence. This one has been going on for nearly sixty years, and it is not showing any signs of slowing down.

I don't think splitting the nation or it's capital will help anything. I would just as soon give the various Native American tribes their land back as ask Isreal to return West Bank. At least they don't have a history of over five hundred broken treaties on that subject.

Palestine isn't doing the bombing, extremist terrorists groups are doing it.


However, in both cases, terrorist acts get results for 'their' side.

Technically, there is no palestine, most of it went to Jordan, and a very small portion of Palestine went to Israel. But Hamas, a terrorist group is being given political leadership of the palestine community.

Unless they are directly funded by a government (Hezbollah comes immediately to mind), terrorists don't have a side, no matter what their ideology is. They are independent, and at least in theory accountable for the actions they engage in.

That completely depends on how you define 'independent'.  Were the original American revolutionaries independent because there was no government that sponsored them?  Did they become French revolutionaries when France sponsored them?  Why did we invade Afghanistan pursuing independent people?

Touche. I'll accept that one about American revolutionaries, except with one important difference. Revolutionaries didn't target the people they were claiming to save. But the point about France is interesting, and one I'll keep in mind. Although if they were aiming to set up a puppet government here, they failed quite dramatically, and if anything the American Revolution indirectly destroyed their country for a time.

Afghanistan is not, and never was legitimately controlled by the Taliban. Only three nations (other than Afghanistan itself) recognized the Taliban control as such: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Pakistan. Ironically and perhaps foolishly, we consider these countries our allies in the fight against said Taliban.

Frankly, I have no objection to invading a country that cannot control itself. Now that you mention it, I'm surprised we didn't receive more global criticism for our invasion. Maybe we did, and our media simply dismissed or ridiculed it.

The taliban attacked a NATO country. It is to be expected that all NATO countries are to support actions against the taliban.

The taliban attacked a NATO country?  I'm not sure what you're talking about here.  If you mean 9/11, that was Al Queda, not the taliban.  Not that that is a huge point or anything, just want to make sure we keep our facts straight.  If you're talking about another attack, please elaborate.

You're right, Al-Qaeda did the attack, and the Taliban just supported them. With the Taliban giving support, Nato countries did have every right to invade.

Would you say, then, that since Israel has attacked Hamas, and because the US supports Israel, that Hamas has "every right" to invade the US?

I'm not disagreeing, necessarily, that NATO countries were justified in invading Afganistan (for the record, I think we went in too early--their "show us your evidence and we'll hand him over" demand, while probably something they had no intent to honor, was an entirely reasonable demand, and one we could have met.  If we did so, and they still didn't let us in, then I think would have been the right moment to go in), but I think your, "you helped someone we don't like, therefore we have the right to invade your country" argument is a bit too vague.

The US has refused to hand over IRA members charged with terrorism to the UK, and people charged with terrorism in Cuba to Cuba.  Would Cuba or the UK be within their rights to invade the US?  Is it just our military might that stops them, or is there any moral/ethical reason for them not to do so?

To answer your question:
In the case of the UK, it's our economic might.  The UK makes a lot of money off American trade, more than the IRA members are worth, so military options are really off the table (Afghanistan is a drop in the bucket of US trade, probably less than what we already give them in foreign aid, so invading them was probably a cost savings).  In the case of Cuba, yeah, they don't have the military power to enforce their will.

If situations were reversed and Cuba was holding someone who had committed terrorist acts in the US, while we might not invade because of their connections to some major oil producing countries, we wouldn't hesitate to roll over their rights whenever convenient to get what we want.

Had someone tell me (I think he was quoting a Grisham book) that warfare was basically highway robbery under a veneer of nobility. Most of the time, I think I agree. And so far, the previous posts have reinforced this idea.

No, but Hamas are terrorists attacking Israel.


It's pretty clear the taliban knew Osama was making cub scout camps, but rather terrorist training camps. The Taliban actively supported A terrorist group that made attacks on a NATO country.

I'm not aware of this or the background behind it.

I can't think of a lot of wars where at least one side couldn't be aptly described like that.

I would like t thank Trust in the Lord for doing the research he did, I've been quite busy the last couple of weeks and didn't have the time to check all the facts in my books and the one web site i checked quickly didn't have all the facts either, so Trust in the Lord thank you for taking the time to correct some of the misconceptions that some held here.

Since it's timely (and since there hasn't been nearly enough disagreement around here of late! ;) ), I thought I'd bump this thread.  Anyone have any thoughts on the current fighting in Gaza?

I find it pretty depressing (as I do most news from the region, I suppose).  I had thought things were going well (by the very low standards of conflict) in the West bank at least.  I thought Fatah really wanted peace, and was a group Israel could reach some kind of agreement with.  From what I read, though, most of the palestians in the west bank are now angry at Fatah, and are viewing Hamas positively.  This seems about the worst thing for any peace agreement possible.  In order to have an agreement, both sides have to want peace.  Hamas doesn't want peace, and the more people turn to that mode of thought, less likely peace will be.

Right now my thoughts are that in the long run, Isreal would be better off not responding to rockets, suicide bombs, etc., militarily, but instead do a media blitz after every attack.  Much of the international community excuse (or ignore, accept, whatever) aggression by hamas because the palestians are the ones suffering.  If Israel stops responding, that victimhood is removed (and, if Israel plays it right, they start to look like the victim).  How long would it take for world opinion to shift on this?  I don't know.  And is it ethical for a government to not respond to attacks on its people, even if its the best thing long-term?  Can a government ask its people to simply tolerate such acts for the long-term benefit?  Even if it can, will the people accept it if the government asks it?

Right now it seems like no matter what Israel does, Hamas can claim some kind of victory.  If Israel responds to an attack, Palestians suffer, and support for hamas grows.  If Israel doesn't respond, Hamas claims to have driven Israel out.  In some cases it can even claim both, similar to what happened with Hezbollah in Lebanon a few years back.  How can one bring about peace in such a situation?  Anyone have any ideas?

I think Israel should keep this going and finish the job, they were attacked first if the Palestinians acted in the manner of Ghandi and use passive non-violent means they would likely have their own state by now. I would drive every last citizen from Gaza and eliminate the immediate threat and let the other Muslim countries take these people in. I would like to mention after what happened to them in WWII the Jews are not going anywhere they better learn to live with that.

I would drive every last citizen from Gaza and eliminate the immediate threat and let the other Muslim countries take these people in.

Excellent idea. We could call it the Final Solution.

Uff da.  Have you really thought about this suggestion deeply, or are you more speaking from anger and frustration?  There's a number of problems here.

First, you bring up that the palestinians haven't "acted in the manner of Ghandi," and clearly they haven't.  But you use that as justification for violence, which is very hypocritical.  It's like saying "You haven't acted non-violently in the face of violence, so I'm going to kill you!"  Israel hasn't been acting in the method of ghandi either.  Both sides are using violence to try and achieve their ends.  You can't really demand non-violence from one side while promoting violence from the other.

When you say you would drive every last citizen from gaze and let other muslim countries take them in, do you have any idea what you're proposing?  According my atlas, there are 1.4 million people living in gaza.  For comparison, .225 or so million homes were lost to hurricane katrina.  What you're suggesting is thus on the order of 6 or so katrina's on the people of gaza.  Further, you're suggesting that 'other muslim countries' take them in.  You seem to have no sense of any responsiblity for these people you're displacing.  It's not 'and let them move else where in palestine' or 'else where in Israel' or even 'to the US.'  It's always someone else's problem.  Do you realize how much of a problem it would cause a country to suddenly have to take in 1.4 million people, without any homes, food, money, anything?  Do you realize that the palestians were already kicked out of their homes and told to move elsewhere when Israel formed?  Do you really think it's ethical to punish 1.4 million people for the actions of a handful of members of Hamas?

More importantly, do you think this will actually do anything to promote peace in the region?  How do you think those 1.4 million people will react to losing everything they have, and being forced at gun point to move into another country (again)?  Do you think they'll think "wow, I guess we must have been wrong after all.  Probably we should get along with Israel from now on," or do you think they'll think "I hate them.  I want to kill them.  Even if it means my own death, I want to kill them."  If history is any judge, the later will be fairly prevalent.

What you're proposing is purely a "might makes right" solution.  It won't bring about peace.  It's not ethical in anyway.  It's the same kind of "victory not peace" thinking that makes this problem continue year after year after year.  It's the same kind of "they did X, so I'm justified doing Y" argument that both sides use to rationalize their wrongdoing.

If you're still having trouble seeing the problems of your argument, switch the two sides in your statement.  What would you think of someone who said "I think Hamas should keep shooting rockets and finish the job.  They were attacked first.  If the Israelis acted in the manner of Ghandi and use passive non-violent means they would likely have peace by now. I would drive every last citizen from Isreal and eliminate the immediate threat and let the other western countries take these people in. I would like to mention after what happened to them in 1948 the Palestians are not going anywhere they better learn to live with that."  How does that sound to you (not a rhetorical question)?  Does it sound reasonable, or likely to work?  Does it sound like a plan for peace, or a call to war?

While I get what you're saying, Tycho, I'm not sure exactly what options are left to the Israelis. This is not exactly a conflict they started. It's not like they suddenly decided out of the blue to attack Gaza. Hamas has been shooting rockets into Israel, thousands a day, day after days, for years now. They have tried other methods, including not responding.

They went through the U.N. for help on this, to the world community, trying to tell their side. But, frankly, it doesn't help. The U.N. hardly even acknowledges the fact that Hamas has been attacking Israel. Every time they take action, the U.N. condemns them. To much of the world, Israel 'did' just suddenly wake up and attack Gaza one day out of the blue. Which, makes sense, in a way. There are many Muslim countries in the world. There's only one that's Jewish. Not that the U.N. has been helping in military matters of late. We all saw how much help the U.N. was when Russia attacked Georgia.

You're right. The Israelis are in a position that the world is going to hate them no matter what they do. And Hamas will claim victory, no matter what they do. So, my suggestion is to simply ignore it. Let the world hate them. It's going to happen anyway. The world community does have an anti-Israelis bias and has for a long time, so what good is it to try to convince them? Let Hamas claim victory all they want. Yeah, they won. They will lose all their infrastructure, all their war machines, most of their soldiers, and will be spending the next decade having to rebuild the area. They sure won.

Israel isn't after blood here. If they wanted to completely destroy Gaza, it would had already been done, without having to send ground tropes this early; that action was done to help protect the innocent. They have plenty of bombs  to just completely level the entire area, if they weren't otherwise concerned about them. The Israelis have been having soldiers evacuate the innocent. But they aren't about to not fire back, when a Hamas soldier decides to shoot at them from a school or launch mortars from a hospital. It's sad because, even with these actions, the very people they're protecting here will still hate them.

All Israel wants is the attacks to stop. But they aren't open for negotiations at this point, which isn't hard to see why. Hamas's very charter, the foundation for their entire organization, names as their very first obligation the complete destruction of Israel. How do you reason peace with someone claims that the most important aspect of their existence is to kill you? Hamas has shown that that is their number one goal, and they'll sacrifice energy, water, food, supplies, communications, all of it, just so they can keep attacking. Any treaty is only going to exist for as long as it takes them to be ready for another offensive. Nothing lasting is going to come.

So, you tell me, Tycho. What exactly are their options?
This message was last edited by the player at 22:09, Thu 15 Jan 2009.

Hmm, they both want to stop, and yet they won't stop unless the other stops.

Only solution I can see is that somebody should stop them both.

Then either that somebody should continue stopping them, or withdraw and see who pulls the first punch after the forced ceasefire, determining who receives the mandate of defender.

You're mistaken. The problem is that Hamas won't stop. Hamas has no intention of stopping. Hamas calls for the complete destruction of Israel and all it's people. Why would it stop?

Neither does Israel have any intention of stopping.

Neither will stop.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:32, Thu 15 Jan 2009.

I see your point, but I still think that it's different in terms of context. Israel is not calling for the complete destruction of Gaza. All they want is for Hamas to stop attacking. They have no intention of occupying Gaza. What would they want with dangerous land full of civilians they can't control and who hate them? If Hamas just stopped the attacks, I had no doubt that the Israelis would stop theirs.

However, that is not a mutual feeling. Hamas would continue to attack, even if Israel 'did' stop. I think that's a keen difference in philosophy that must be accounted for. Israel isn't trying for the destruction of Gaza. Hamas, however, is trying for the destruction of Israel. If Israel wins this conflict, I had no doubt that they will not take further action. If Hamas wins this conflict, they will keep attacking still. It doesn't matter.

This isn't two sides waiting for the other to stop. This is one side waiting for the other to stop, and the another side who will not stop.

I see that occupying Gaza would be the only way to eliminate the Hamas and the other Militant Anti-Israeli groups, so yes, I do see a reason for Israel to want to occupy Gaza.

It's the same reason why America occupied Iraq, despite the fact that it was full of civilians they couldn't control and hated them; so that they could root out terrorist groups and keep them on the defensive.

Do you think after all that has happened that Israel won't stop at nothing to eradicate Hamas?

This message was deleted by the player at 01:23, Fri 16 Jan 2009.

To be honest, I'm not sure either.  But I think its critical to get away from the concept of "what am I justified to do by their actions," and view it from a "what can I do end this cycle of violence," point of view.  Right now the "we can do X because they did Y" mode of thinking only seems to escalate the problem, rather than making it go away.


Both sides feel that the other started it.  And to me, I don't think it matters who started it.  That's justification thinking, rather than solution thinking.


Well, for accuracy's sake, it's not "thousands a day."  It's dozens a day at best.  Which isn't to trivialize the effect of rocket attacks, but we do need to accept that Palestians are suffering far more in this conflict than are Israelis.  As for having tried not responding, I don't think they've given that tactic enough time to work.  I'm not sure if a democratically elected government would be able to give it enough time to work, but clearly a couple years isn't going to do it.


I think the problem is that much of the world is viewing the situation in the same justification-based mode of thought.  They see that palestians are suffering more than are Israelis, and thus view Israel as the bigger bad guy.  They're more willing to over look the rocket attacks because Isreal's attacks do more damage and cause more suffering.  It's this whole "well, you did this first!" kind of thinking that's the problem.  It's the fixation on arguing over who's right and who's wrong instead of looking for a way to solve the problem.


Well, to a degree, in the long run they're going to need world support.  They need to gain support in this community in order to reach a lasting peace.  Also, I think the world's 'bias' largely comes about because palestians are suffering a great deal, and that's not something Israel should ignore.  It's very important, I think, that they realize and understand how much suffering they are causing.  It's important for them to think "my actions are causing this suffering," rather than "their actions justify me taking these actions."  I disagree that the world will hate Isreal no matter what Israel does.  The question, Though, is whether Isreal is willing to make the sacrifices necessary to make the world not hate them.


The trouble, though, is that I don't believe Israel can actually do that to Hamas.  All it takes is a tiny handful of people to shoot rockets into Israel.  And for every member of Hamas that Israel kills, more will pop up to replace them if innocents are killed in the process.  That's the thing about organizations like Hamas.  They're not an army that you can just blow up and then they're gone.  Blowing them up often makes them stronger, ironically, because they become martyrs of the people.  They gain support by losing militarily often times.  You go in and crush them, and that makes people support them more, it makes more people join them, it makes more people ship them rockets, etc.


Again, though, I think leveling Gaza would only increase the stature of Hamas, and increase the hatred for Israel (which is the real enemy), and increase the number of people who want to shoot rockets into Israel.


Again, that's justification thinking.  It's letting the enemy force your hand, and determine your actions.  It's passing off responsibility for your choices to the people you least want making the decisions.  Hamas shoots from schools specifically with the intent of getting Israel to fire back, so that the world can see that Israel blows up schools.  Israel doesn't win when it does that.  It might kill a few member of Hamas, but it turns dozens more people around the world against them.


Yes!  Which is why their military action isn't working.  You can't tell a people that you could have killed a lot more of their innocents than you actually did and expect them to love you.  You can't say "sure, we've killed 500 innocents, but it easily could have been 1000!" and expect them to appreciate that.  You can't tell the people of Gaza who have seen their family members killed, their homes destroyed, and their lives ruined that Israel is really looking out for them.  They'll never believe it, even if it's true that things could be worse.  People don't see the people that could have been killed but weren't, they see the people who were in fact killed.  That's unfortunate, but it needs to be realized.


Yes, I agree that Hamas will not find peace with Israel.  For there to be peace, Hamas will need to be taken out of the picture.  However, it doesn't seem like this can occur miltarily.  Hamas gains support and influence when Israel attacks, even if it loses material and members.  The support and influence is what matters in the long run, though.  As long as Palestians see Israel as an oppressor and aggressor (regardless of whether Israel actually is), groups like Hamas will flurish.  It's not the individual members of Hamas that are the true problem, but the general hatred of Israel.  The rockets are just a symptom of the larger disease.  By trying to cure the symptoms, Israel only makes the disease worse.


To be honest, I think the only thing that can lead to lasting peace is for Israel to realize that they cannot stop the rockets by killing Palestinians, or by causing further suffering.  In the long run, the only way to make the rockets stop is to get Palestians to stop viewing Israel as an oppressor.  Israel cannot eliminate Hamas, in my opinion, only Palestinians can.  And that will only happen when Palestinians stop viewing Israel as an enemy.  That will take a very, very long time.  The people who have seen their family members die these past few weeks will probably never forgive Israel.  But if Israel can accept the rockets as beyond their immediate control, and work to convince the Palestinian people that they are allies, the palestinians will eventually stop the rockets.  Like I say, this is a very long term strategy.  Most likely decades.  Can Israelis simply accept rockets for that long?  I don't know.  I'm not too confident, honestly.  But I see it as the only long-term strategy to peace.  They need to stop thinking "do I have a right to shoot back," and start thinking "will shooting back actually accomplish anything?"  They need to stop thinking "what do those other people deserve," and start thinking "what will make those other people stop hating us?"  Every time a rocket falls in Israel, put in the media, and appeal to the UN.  And keep doing this, over, and over, and over, without retaliating.  Accept that for the first year or two (or more even), that every time you do this, much of the arab world will shout for joy, and the UN will do nothing.  But keep doing it anyway.  Over time the world will start to see Israel as the victim rather than the aggressor, and support will shift.  Realize that this will take a long time, and don't give up when quick changes don't occur.  Offer rewards for periods without rocket attacks, rather than punishment for periods with them.  Don't make things worse for Palestinians, even when Hamas is making things worse for Israel, because palestinians won't buy the tit-for-tat argument.  Remember that people don't see the things you might have done but didn't, they only see those things that you actually do, and they generally won't care much about why you say you're doing them.  Saying "we're causing this suffering because of what Hamas did," won't turn them against Hamas, it will turn them against Israel.  On the other hand, saying "Because there were no rockets this month, we're sending over this money to build a school," will turn people against Hamas in the long run.  Realize that sacrifices must be made for peace.  Real sacrifices, horrible sacrifices.  Realize it's not going to be easy, it's not going to be free, and the other side probably won't be making the sacrifices.  View it as a unilateral effort to achieve peace.  Can Israel do this?  I really don't know.  It's not the kind of thing democracies are good at, to be honest.  Actually, it's not the kind of thing human beings are good at.  But I don't see any other long-term solution that is likely to work.

But occupation of Gaza, and similar actions, is the kind of thing that gives rise to groups like Hamas in the first place.  Hamas is the symptom of the bigger problem, which is hatred of Israel.  You can't make people stop hating you through military means.  Occupying gaza won't make the problem go away.


I don't think Israel can eradicate Hamas.  They could kill every member of Hamas, and still rockets would fly into Israel.  Hamas is nothing more than a bunch of people who hate Israel enough to kill people over it.  As long as there are people in Palestine with that much hatred, there will be Hamas, or another group just as bad.  You can't eliminate hatred at gunpoint.  Every innocent person that dies in Palestine leads to more people that hate Israel enough to kill over it.  Even every guilty person that dies in Palestine leads to more people that hate Israel.  Israel may get Hamas to say 'uncle,' and agree to stop shooting rockets for a while, but it won't solve the problem.  It just puts off a lasting peace further.
This message was last edited by the GM at 22:18, Fri 16 Jan 2009.

True, violence won't change people's minds.  But due to the current hostility of the Gaza people, trying to spread cultural changes is going to be pretty hard without softer borders, such as an Occupation might provide.



I don't think Hamas can eradicate Israel.  But they're both in Wild Boar Mode right now, and that sort of logic isn't going to stop them from trying.

What they can do however, in occupying Gaza, is cause the deterioration of support for groups like that as more civilian casualties are caused by terrorist attacks, as well as allowing for the culture of Israel to become more familiar to the Palestinians.

Once the people of Gaza realize that the people who are willing to destroy Israel are willing to do it on their own streets, using an old lady as a body bag if necessary, then the support, both spoken and unspoken, will begin to dry up.  Also, I believe that it becomes harder to hate somebody if you share an experience of danger and tragedy with them.

So though it seems a little harsh, it's not the Occupation itself that will stop the violence, but the casualties while there, both of Gaza civilian and Israeli Soldier, that will stop the violence.
This message was last edited by the player at 21:20, Fri 16 Jan 2009.

I don't think history backs up that idea, though.  Occupation has only made palestians hate Israel more, not less.  Seeing innocent people killed because hamas hides behind them doesn't seem to make them hate Hamas, it seems to make them hate Israel.  You can argue that they should be more upset with Hamas about it, but it simply doesn't seem to be the case.  The causualties in Gaza simply don't seem to turn palestinians against Hamas, but rather drive them to supporting Hamas.  Again, it might not make sense, but that seems to be what happens.  Unfortunately, Israel can't count on Palestinians being logical.  When you see your family and friends killed, you it's much more your heart that determines your reaction than your mind in most cases.  I totally agree that Palestinians should be rising up against Hamas, but I just don't think Israel can't make that happen by attacking Gaza.

But can we count on Israel being logical?  If they had thought to stop the shooting and refuse to fire back, they would have by now.

The problem isn't that a method exists in which to end the fighting.  The problem is that this is a never ending cycle that only an outside influence is going to be able to stop, because neither side has any intention of stopping.

Sure, we can look from the outside and say what Ought to be done, to say to Israel "sacrifice a few thousand men, for either mine or Tycho's idea, and in a few years let's see if it changed anything"

We'd probably be gunned down at some point during or after saying this :P

It's like the Traitor Scenario.  Nobody's going to not Rat, because they refuse to communicate their intentions to eachother, and they would refuse to listen even if the other did.  They're both going to rat, even though from the outside perspective this is the worst option.

I'll give a more proper response to your comeback later, Tycho, but I have to say, from the looks of it, it almost appears one sided. You claim about how Palestinians will hate Israel when they see their soldiers and weaponry cost them family and friends, but what about the Israelis? How can you ask the Israelis to be sympathetic towards the Palestinians grief, but seemingly ignore those Israeli lives that Hamas takes with it's rockets? Is it justified for Palestinians to feel hatred for Israel out of grief, but not for the Israelis?

I mean, it seems as if you're asking the Israelis to value the Palestinians more than their own civilians. What about the betrayal the Israelis must feel if they follow your guidelines and not try to actually do something about stopping the attacks or bringing justice when one of their family members or friends die from Hamas attacks? How about the enmity they must feel when Hamas blows up a hospital and celebrates openly for it for their own country to do nothing about it?

This is true.  I do write it from a "what can Israel do?" stand point.  And I do ask Israel to be the ones to make the decision to have peace instead of victory, or justice, or the like.  This is because I think Israel in a position to make such a decision, and because you asked "what are Israel's options?"  If Palestinians a whole decided they want peace more than victory or justice, they took could make the decision to have it.  I guess I just feel it's more likely (though still quite unlikely) that Israel will make that decision.  I think there's more hope for it.  It's not because I think Israel should be the ones who have to make that call, but because I think they're more likely to do so.


It's not an issue of justification.  Both sides are justified in hating each other.  But that's not going to get anything for anyone.  As I keep saying, justification is entirely the wrong way to think about this, because both sides have provided endless justification for the other's actions.


Sort of.  I'm asking them to value peace over justice, really.  And yes, that will be like asking them to value innocent palestinians more than innocent Israelis.  I know that's asking a lot.  I know that it's much easier, that it's much more within human nature to strike back than to turn the other cheek.  But that's the only way I can see that peace will be achieved.  Until one side or the other is willing to say "I forgive you for killing my people," there will be plenty of justification for more killing, and thus no peace.  I honestly don't think either side can achieve peace by killing people from the other side in this situation, but rather, can achieve it by not killing the other side in response to them killing.


Yeah, that's the big problem.  Feelings of enmity and betrayal drive our decisions more than a desire for peace.  I freely admit what I'm asking is for Israelis to swallow those feelings, and not demand justice.  I know that's not human nature.  And again, if palestinians would make the same decision, that would work too, though I'm even less confident that that will
happen, because it will take them actively fighting their own side (ie, shutting Hamas down themselves, and Hamas have already shown their willingness to fight other palestinians during the civil war a few years back), instead of just passively letting their own side get hit.  Like I've said, it will take a decision by one side to make a large sacrifice for peace, and that sacrifice will include not acting on legitimate and real feelings like the ones you mention.

After not being on the board a while I decided to have a look and see what was being said about the current situation. Some interesting things have been said and ideas expressed I hope you don’t mind me clarifying a few things what with being Johnny on the spot and all. First of all it wasn't 'dozens' of rockets but more like forty or fifty a day if not more, yes it has dwindled but that is because the Israeli army took away much of Hamas's ability and supplies to fire off more rockets. I do not think the Israeli government is completely on the side of angels here, yes action had to be taken once Hamas got rockets that gave them more range and allowed them to reach more centrally into Israel. However I do find the timing of the counter offensive very convenient considering there’s elections coming up here in Israel in a few months. A bit of a strange sentiment for an Israeli to have no?

Might i just say that this conflict was known to be just a matter of time when the Palestinians elected Hamas to power, it was a simple matter of cause and effect.

Now I might have missed this question being asked but what do you think your countries would have done if they were the ones being bombed on a daily basis? For some reason i doubt they just would have gritted their teeth and stood still while it was happening.

Tycho I’m not going to quote you as there’s allot to quote :) however as I understood it you basically said that Israel shouldn't respond so that the world opinion of Israel and the Palistians would change, in the hope that peace might happen. There is a small part of me that does agree, the Palistians are very good spin doctors and they know how to play to the media where as the Israeli spokesmen don’t on the whole with a few exceptions. I've often thought Israel could do with a better PR spokes person along the lines of Bibi Netanyahu, I don't care for the man myself but he does know how to talk to the press. But there’s a number of things you don't understand about Israel and the Palistians. Remember when Israel was founded and what terrible things happened to allow its birth. I don't know how much of the history of Israel you might know but there is a story here that is engraved on Israel's psyque and that is Masada. Masada was the summer palace of King Herod about two thousand years ago, a group of zealots had taken refuge there against Rome, they held out against Rome for a year but in the end Masada fell, they committed suicide instead of being taken. There’s a saying here, that we'll never let Masada fall again, that is part of the thought process here. The other is as follows, 'lambs to the slaughter' in the Bible Isaac allowed himself to be tied like a lamb to the slaughter, in all the reports about the Holocaust one expression gets used repeatedly how the Jews allowed themselves to be taken like 'sheep to the slaughter' part of what makes Israel is the belief that because of having our own homeland never again will Jews be like lambs to the slaughter. So when you say that Israel should just allow it's self to be bombed for years if need be it goes against the very principles on which Israel was founded.

You also need to understand that if Israel hadn't responded Hamas would have viewed Israel as weak and seen that as justification to do even more terrible things to its people. I do know that sounds like justification on Israel's part all i can do is point to Israel's track record, if a country is truly willing to make peace with Israel that Israel is always willing to make peace even if it means making sacrifices on Israel’s part or have you forgotten Egypt and Jordon?

I often wonder what type of squewed picture the media paints of Israel’s actions, like when they reported on Israeli forces firing on an international school or a UN building. Did the media mention that Hamas forces were inside and were using Palastinian civilians as a shield to fire on Israeli forces? Or that Hamas had built bunkers and weapon dumps under their own hospital?

If so, you're saying that the palestinians are actually running the show in Israel, not the Israelis.  What the palestinians do determine's Israel's actions, not Israel's own decisions.  That is part of what I think Israelis need to realize: by treating everything as a necessary consequence, they are giving up control of their own country.


What do I think they would do, or should do?  I don't doubt the US (or the UK, where I'm living now) would respond similarly (though, admittedly, the UK did have a similar situation with northern Ireland, and did manage to get a peace agreement, in part by showing more restraint in their responses).  But just because they would do that, I don't think that it's the right way to solve the issue.


And if these things are more important to Israelis than peace, then the situation will continue like it is indefinitely, and the world will continue to see Israel as oppressors.  This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.  Justifying violence rather than looking for peace.  You say it's engrained on the Israeli psyche, and I'm saying that's a large part of the problem.  The palestinians have just as many stories about their history, and "we won't let X happen again" arguments as the Israelis.  If you honestly feel that what happened 2000 years ago justifies your actions today, then I think you're interested more in victory than in obtaining peace.  And as long as there are palestinians who feel the same way, things will remain the same.  They'll justify their rockets by events in the past, Israelis will justify their airstrikes with events in the past, and it will just keep going.


Hamas doesn't need any justification to do terrible things.  They're already willing to do anything and everything.  People who are willing to blow themselves up to kill innocent people for their cause aren't going to be intimidated by violence.  Now, rocket attacks may increase in the near term if Isreal doesn't respond to them, yes.  But like I said, Israel can't stop the rocket attacks with force.  It's demonstrated that quite conclusively with this last offensive.  The reasons is that the rockets are just a symptom.  The hatred of Israel is the actual problem, which causes people to fire rockets.  Blowing up rockets only makes more people hate Israel, makes more people willing to fire rockets.  Only the Palestinians can stop the rockets, and they never will until they stop hating Israel.

Again, I'm not pretending this is an easy solution, it's a very, very hard pill for Israel to swallow.  And yes, Palestinians could swallow similar hard pills themselves to obtain peace as well.  But Israel is in a better position to pull it off, I think.


What you need to realize, though, is that Hamas doesn't want peace.  Sure, if they did, there'd be peace.  But Israel can't just say "Well if they change their minds, then..." or things will just keep going on as they are.  Israel has to realize that Hamas doesn't want peace, and figure how they (Israel) can get peace with palestinians even though Hamas doesn't want it.  Israel can only control its own actions and choices.  It's limited to the decisions it can make.  It can't make Hamas want peace, nor can it make Hamas disappear.  It can, however, encourage palestinians to abandon Hamas.  But it can't do that with violence (again, as this offensive has shown).  Hamas (who wants violence) thrives when Israel attacks.  Fatah took a bit hit during this offensive, and Hamas gained much more palestinian support.  For all their faults (and there are many of them, don't get me wrong), Fatah does want peace with Israel.  But this offensive caused Hamas to gain support and Fatah to lose it, which is the exact opposite of what Israel should want.


They report that Israel says these things, but say they are unable to confirm either sides story, since international reports weren't allowed into Gaza.  So yes, the media does report the Israeli side of the story, but makes it clear that it's not possible to independently determine who's correct.  Out of curiosity (since I really have no idea what israeli media is like), does the Israeli media report the palestinian side of the story?  Does it say that palestinians and the UN aid workers deny that Hamas was inside the UN building?

Tycho wrote:
If so, you're saying that the palestinians are actually running the show in Israel, not the Israelis.  What the palestinians do determine's Israel's actions, not Israel's own decisions.  That is part of what I think Israelis need to realize: by treating everything as a necessary consequence, they are giving up control of their own country.

No that is not what I’m saying, the Palestinians had a free election they decided who they wanted in power, they decided they wanted a terrorist group in charge of their country that has caused them more problems, as seen by the withdrawal of international funds they had previously been receiving to help build up the country of Palestinian. By electing Hamas they knew it would lead to conflict with Israel. Israel id not cause the current situation it simply prepared and responded when the attacks became to much to take any longer.

Tycho wrote:
What do I think they would do, or should do?  I don't doubt the US (or the UK, where I'm living now) would respond similarly (though, admittedly, the UK did have a similar situation with northern Ireland, and did manage to get a peace agreement, in part by showing more restraint in their responses).  But just because they would do that, I don't think that it's the right way to solve the issue.

Please, saying that the UK had a similar problem with Northern Ireland is a joke, by comparing the two shows how little you understand of the Palestinian way of thinking.  You do understand a great deal about the situation and you are better informed then most but you seem to have a block when it comes to that subject, you seem to think that the Palestinians think the same way that the people of the west do, that is incorrect. I’m not trying to portray them as some kind of monster as is often done so as to justify Israel’s actions, all I’m saying is they think and respond differently from what those that grew up in Europe or America do, just as those that live in China, India or Japan do.

Tycho wrote:
And if these things are more important to Israelis than peace, then the situation will continue like it is indefinitely, and the world will continue to see Israel as oppressors.  This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.  Justifying violence rather than looking for peace.  You say it's engrained on the Israeli psyche, and I'm saying that's a large part of the problem.  The palestinians have just as many stories about their history, and "we won't let X happen again" arguments as the Israelis.  If you honestly feel that what happened 2000 years ago justifies your actions today, then I think you're interested more in victory than in obtaining peace.  And as long as there are palestinians who feel the same way, things will remain the same.  They'll justify their rockets by events in the past, Israelis will justify their airstrikes with events in the past, and it will just keep going.

Sigh I did not say those things were more important then peace I said that those things were part of what made up the Israeli thought process, to help you understand better the reason behind certain actions. If all Israel wanted was to obliterate the Palestinians then that would have been done, it isn’t a matter of who wins at least not on Israel’s side. Israel doesn’t need the events of the past to justify anything. Israel doesn’t need to justify the airstrikes it responded to a hostile attack in a way that would pose the least danger to its own citizens.

Tycho wrote:
Hamas doesn't need any justification to do terrible things.  They're already willing to do anything and everything.  People who are willing to blow themselves up to kill innocent people for their cause aren't going to be intimidated by violence.  Now, rocket attacks may increase in the near term if Israel doesn't respond to them, yes.  But like I said, Israel can't stop the rocket attacks with force.  It's demonstrated that quite conclusively with this last offensive.  The reasons is that the rockets are just a symptom.  The hatred of Israel is the actual problem, which causes people to fire rockets.  Blowing up rockets only makes more people hate Israel, makes more people willing to fire rockets.  Only the Palestinians can stop the rockets, and they never will until they stop hating Israel.

Again, I'm not pretending this is an easy solution, it's a very, very hard pill for Israel to swallow.  And yes, Palestinians could swallow similar hard pills themselves to obtain peace as well.  But Israel is in a better position to pull it off, I think.

I disagree, Israel’s attack did what it set out to do which was to reduce Hamas’s ability to attack Israel we did not go in expecting to stop the attacks altogether. And how do you expect Israel to get the Palestinians to stop hating Israel? Maybe we should rip the children away from the parents and reeducate them….some how I don’t think that will work. Saying that A plus B equals C as you are saying ignores a whole host of problems and isn’t a solution, Israel tried what you are suggesting for a long time, it didn’t work, did it move the peace process one inch closer? No. There was an mail my brother sent me that I think cleared up the picture, it went as follows, if the Arabs put down their weapons there would be peace tomorrow if Israel put down it’s weapons there would be no more Israel.

Tycho wrote:
What you need to realize, though, is that Hamas doesn't want peace.  Sure, if they did, there'd be peace.  But Israel can't just say "Well if they change their minds, then..." or things will just keep going on as they are.  Israel has to realize that Hamas doesn't want peace, and figure how they (Israel) can get peace with palestinians even though Hamas doesn't want it.  Israel can only control its own actions and choices.  It's limited to the decisions it can make.  It can't make Hamas want peace, nor can it make Hamas disappear.  It can, however, encourage palestinians to abandon Hamas.  But it can't do that with violence (again, as this offensive has shown).  Hamas (who wants violence) thrives when Israel attacks.  Fatah took a bit hit during this offensive, and Hamas gained much more palestinian support.  For all their faults (and there are many of them, don't get me wrong), Fatah does want peace with Israel.  But this offensive caused Hamas to gain support and Fatah to lose it, which is the exact opposite of what Israel should want.

Picture me rolling my eyes, it isn’t just Hamas that doesn’t want peace but the Palestinian people aswell, if they had wanted peace they wouldn’t have elected Hamas to power. Israel cant make peace if it doesn’t have a partner who also wants peace. Fatah lost its footing as those in power for a number of reasons, one of them being because a number of them are corrupt and the Palestinians were tired of seeing Fatah officials with big houses and cars when they were having a hard time keeping their children fed. Unfortunately the Palestinians need a leadership that doesn’t want to exploit them in one form or another and until that happens I doubt that peace is a real option.

Tycho wrote:
They report that Israel says these things, but say they are unable to confirm either sides story, since international reports weren't allowed into Gaza.  So yes, the media does report the Israeli side of the story, but makes it clear that it's not possible to independently determine who's correct.  Out of curiosity (since I really have no idea what israeli media is like), does the Israeli media report the palestinian side of the story?  Does it say that palestinians and the UN aid workers deny that Hamas was inside the UN building?

Yes of course. Though the idea that Hamas might be telling the truth is a joke, its all a matter of trust, do I think Israel would fire on civilians without provocation, no I don’t but then I would think that. In the past Israel has given warning to evacuate buildings before taking punitive actions but this would just become a matter of he said she said.

Again, you act as if Israel had no choice, and was merely an animate object reacting to a force.  The whole "they started it!" excuse doesn't get us anywhere, because both sides sincerely believe that the other "started it."  I'm sure there a palestinians who are saying right now "Palestine didn't cause this situation!  It simply prepared and responded when the oppression became too much to take any longer!"  And they really, honestly, sincerely believe it just as much as believe what you said.  Telling them they're wrong will have more effect on them then telling you that you're wrong.  Again, you're thinking in terms of justification for violence, rather than looking for a way to stop it in the long run.  You thinking boils down to "Israel can do X, because the Palestinians already did Y."  It's reactionary, and it's the kind of thinking that keeps the problem going on year after year.  It's human nature, and it's how pretty much everyone everywhere thinks, but that doesn't mean it's what's needed to solve the problem.


How so?


And yet you spend so much time and effort justifying it anyway.  Why?


Rockets are being smuggled into gaza right now, like as not.  rockets are still being fired, last I checked the news.  And like I say, the rockets are only a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.  Take away all the rockets, and they'll find some other way to kill people.  Over 1000 palestinians are dead.  Countless buildings have been destroyed.  Much of Gaza is in ruins.  For what?  Reducing rockets from 50 to 20 a day?  And a very real chance that Hamas will win the next election in the West bank now as well?


That's more less what my post a few back described.  Stop doing the things that make palestinians hate Israel (eg, blowing up buildings, killing people (even those who might deserve it), cutting off the borders to trade, cutting off energy supplies, building settlements in palestine, etc.)


Again, if you wait for the other side to take the necessary action for change, things won't change.  You're still stuck on justification thinking.  Every time you mention what someone else is doing wrong, instead of trying to figure out what Israel can do itself to bring peace closer, you're passing the buck, and prolonging the status quo.  Like I say, that's human nature, but it's not the way forward.


Some of them don't want peace, yes.  Many of them do, though.  But each time Israel drives tanks into palestine, some of the palestinians who do want peace switch over and start wanting revenge more than peace.


I agree, which is why its so counter productive to do things which bring more popular support to the side that wants violence.  Attacking Gaza has pushed many many palestinians away from peace, towards Hamas and violence.


Yeah, like I said, Fatah has many faults.  But if you're throwing up your hands and saying "nothing can be done!" then nothing will be done, and the situtation won't change.  Israel can simply wait and hope that things will change, or it can do something to bring about that change itself.


Which is exactly what people in much of the rest of the world think about Israel.  And they believe it just as sincerely and deeply and honestly as you believe it about Hamas.


I don't think so either, though I could easily believe that somebody simply messed up.  Those kind of screw-ups happen all too often in combat.


Exactly.  The media here (I'm in the UK, I get my news primarily from the nytimes and the bbc) tends to report what both sides say, and points out that neither side's story can be checked up on at this time.

Elana typed:
...Israel id not cause the current situation it simply prepared and responded when the attacks became to much to take any longer.

Again, you act as if Israel had no choice, and was merely an animate object reacting to a force.  The whole "they started it!" excuse doesn't get us anywhere, because both sides sincerely believe that the other "started it."  I'm sure there a palestinians who are saying right now "Palestine didn't cause this situation!  It simply prepared and responded when the oppression became too much to take any longer!"  And they really, honestly, sincerely believe it just as much as believe what you said.  Telling them they're wrong will have more effect on them then telling you that you're wrong.  Again, you're thinking in terms of justification for violence, rather than looking for a way to stop it in the long run.  You thinking boils down to "Israel can do X, because the Palestinians already did Y."  It's reactionary, and it's the kind of thinking that keeps the problem going on year after year.  It's human nature, and it's how pretty much everyone everywhere thinks, but that doesn't mean it's what's needed to solve the problem.

No I’m not thinking in terms of justification, you’re the one that is seeing it that way, you seem to think that in spite of Palestine being a sovereign state that Israel has some control over it’s actions and people.

Elana typed:
...all I’m saying is they think and respond differently from what those that grew up in Europe or America do, just as those that live in China, India or Japan do.

Tycho typed:
How so?

Sigh if Israeli’s understood the Palestinian thought process better I doubt there would be the same degree of problems that currently stands. All I can do is point to their actions and ask you if the people of the west understand such actions, suicide bombing, the fact that they purposely try to target children when it comes to such attacks, honor killing of their own people, example, last week a teenager killed his sister because he felt she was dishonoring their family by wanting to go out in the evening, this happened in an Palestinian town not 20 kilometers from where I live. If I try to explain my own understanding of their way of thinking im afraid it might come off sounding patronizing which is not my intent at all, my intent is simply to say that they do think differently then those in the west. I suppose it could be said that they live closer to the Bible then most, their idea of justice is along the lines of what was thought to be just in biblical times, very much an eye for an eye type of thing.

Elana typed:
Sigh I did not say those things were more important then peace I said that those things were part of what made up the Israeli thought process, to help you understand better the reason behind certain actions.</quote.
True, you didn't say they were more important than peace.  But you kept giving them as justification for actions that make peace hard to achieve.  That, to me, implies that you feel they're more important than peace.  If you say "Israel could never do X because" you're implying that Israel views not doing X more than obtaining peace.

<quote Elana>If all Israel wanted was to obliterate the Palestinians then that would have been done, it isn’t a matter of who wins at least not on Israel’s side. Israel doesn’t need the events of the past to justify anything. Israel doesn’t need to justify the airstrikes it responded to a hostile attack in a way that would pose the least danger to its own citizens.

Tycho typed:
And yet you spend so much time and effort justifying it anyway.  Why?

I’m not justifying simply trying to explain Israel actions and point of view to you.

Rockets are being smuggled into gaza right now, like as not.  rockets are still being fired, last I checked the news.  And like I say, the rockets are only a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.  Take away all the rockets, and they'll find some other way to kill people.  Over 1000 palestinians are dead.  Countless buildings have been destroyed.  Much of Gaza is in ruins.  For what?  Reducing rockets from 50 to 20 a day?  And a very real chance that Hamas will win the next election in the West bank now as well?

That may be and that is a problem that we will have to deal with in the future but Israel did what it set out to do at this time.

Elana typed:
And how do you expect Israel to get the Palestinians to stop hating Israel?

That's more less what my post a few back described.  Stop doing the things that make palestinians hate Israel (eg, blowing up buildings, killing people (even those who might deserve it), cutting off the borders to trade, cutting off energy supplies, building settlements in palestine, etc.)

I see, so Israel is just suppose to open it’s borders and let in countless suicide bombers and terrorists? Just lay back and take every hostile action that is done to us just by turning the other cheek? Sorry but your being very unrealistic. If Israel were to do that it would be like inviting additional attacks on it’s self not just by Palestine but by other hostile countries.

Tycho typed:
Again, if you wait for the other side to take the necessary action for change, things won't change.  You're still stuck on justification thinking.  Every time you mention what someone else is doing wrong, instead of trying to figure out what Israel can do itself to bring peace closer, you're passing the buck, and prolonging the status quo.  Like I say, that's human nature, but it's not the way forward.

Again you’re not listening, you can not make peace if only one side wants it, you seem to think that Israel has some control over Palestine’s actions, that is not the case.

Tycho typed:
Some of them don't want peace, yes.  Many of them do, though.  But each time Israel drives tanks into palestine, some of the palestinians who do want peace switch over and start wanting revenge more than peace.

Your right in that Israel’s action do cause more hate, so you’re saying that Israel shouldn’t use all of it capabilities to protect its own citizens and borders, sorry but I feel your being very unrealistic. Israelis live with danger every day the steps that the Israeli army takes is to minimize that danger what your suggesting would increase that danger a hundred fold.

Tycho typed:
Yeah, like I said, Fatah has many faults.  But if you're throwing up your hands and saying "nothing can be done!" then nothing will be done, and the situtation won't change.  Israel can simply wait and hope that things will change, or it can do something to bring about that change itself.

Like ive said repeatedly Israel has no control over the Palestinian leadership and their elections, you seem very intent on ignoring that fact. Things can be done but it’s a matter of give and take, Israel needs to see that the Palestinian people even want an end of violence, right now all they’re actions are saying is that they want to continue the conflict.

I see, so Israel is just suppose to open it’s borders and let in countless suicide bombers and terrorists? Just lay back and take every hostile action that is done to us just by turning the other cheek? Sorry but your being very unrealistic. If Israel were to do that it would be like inviting additional attacks on it’s self not just by Palestine but by other hostile countries.

Yes, but Israel's tactics of military reprisals haven't ever worked since you started using them, so maybe it's time to switch things up, hmm?

It hasn't worked completely no but it has lessened them. when a suicide bomber knows that their family will suffer by loosing their home because of the bombers actions it gives them another cause to think. Now I have a question for all of you what do you think Israel should do, I don't want to hear broad ideals but specifics on what steps the country should take without opening it's self up and it's citizens to terrorists attacks. Because ideals are all well and good but were dealing with reality, maybe not you but I am, my sister lives in Beer Sheva one of the areas that was being bombed, her husband was so close to one of the rockets that he felt the shock wave of it, should a nine year old child have to hear bomb sirens and be having panic attacks because of it not to mention the nightmare because of what she sees on the news because her parents are compulsively watching it as if watching it will stop the bombs falling where they are?

I know theres another side of the coin that a Palestinian can say similiar things, yes it is true, and it would be wonderful to have peace, Israel doesn't want enemies on its borders and within its borders Israelis want peace but you have to have two parties that want peace and with Hamas in charge that isn't going to happen. And so far the only way Hamas wants peace is if they get all of Jerusalem and The Right to Return, and those are the only two things Israel can't give them, everything else Israel is willing to conceed but for those two things.

It hasn't worked completely no but it has lessened them. when a suicide bomber knows that their family will suffer by loosing their home because of the bombers actions it gives them another cause to think

The fact that you can even consider it remotely justified to hurt innocent people to punish criminals means that we have absolutely no moral values in common. My future participation in this conversation is pointless, we have no common ground to engage in debate on.

Not control, no, but a very strong influence.  Every person killed in Gaza by Israel will likely lead to a few thousand votes switching from Fatah to Hamas in the next election.  That's not 'control' but it's a very real effect.  Israel's actions have empowered Hamas rather than weakened it.  If you only think in terms of how many rockets it can fire, you miss the point.  It's the popular support that matters more in terms of long term peace.  Israel can and does influence the actions of Palestinians, even if it can't control them.  It's the attempts at direct control (ie, killing people so they can't shoot rockets) that end up having the exact opposite effect as desired (ie, by driving people towards Hamas instead of away).


Okay, that's a good start.  They have a more 'eye-for-an-eye' view of things.  In that case, do you think having a similar eye-for-an-eye view of things will solve the problem?  If they attack out of revenge for previous attacks, what is the obvious way to stop the cycle of violence?


Okay, fair enough.  I understand that point of view.  However, I think that point of view will lead to a continuation of the problem.  I can understand why Israel takes the actions it does, but I still think those actions are the wrong ones to take.  Like I've said, it's human nature to act as Israel does.  Humans naturally have a desire for justice.  But a fixation on justice can lead to a never-ending cycle of violence.  To end such a cycle, someone needs to swallow the bitter pill and let the other side get away with some crimes.


Short term thinking won't lead to a long-term solution.


Am I being unrealistic?  Quite possibly.  Like I said, I don't hold out much hope that Israelis will be willing to do what is necessary to achieve peace (and I have even less hope that palestinians will).  I wouldn't be at all surprised if both sides just keep on killing each other for the rest of my lifetime and beyond.  I would like to see a solution, but I freely admit it's not all that likely to happen.

So yes, I am asking Israel to accept an increase of violence for a time.  I am asking it to turn the other cheek in response to attacks.  I am asking it to 'sit back and take' hostile actions.  Why?  Because that's the only way I see for peace to be achieved.  One side has to make a sacrifice to achieve peace, and as you say, Israel can't control palestinians and make them make that sacrifice.  Is the sacrifice too big for Israelis to swallow?  Quite possibly.  If they'd rather maintain the current violence for ever, than accept a temporary increase, that's what they'll get.


Again, it's influence, not control.  Israel can't make Palestine do what it wants.  But it can encourage certain actions, and provide incentive for them.  The miltary actions is doing the exact opposite.  It's encouraging people to support Hamas.  It's driving palestinians away from the peace movement.  It's worsening the true problem (ie, the hatred) in order to address a symptom of the problem (ie, the rockets).


Again, it may be unrealistic, but it seems to be the only path towards a lasting peace.


I would argue the steps taken by the military have traded long term safety for short term safety.  You'll get maybe a year or so of reduced rocket fire, but have set back the peace process far more than that.  To get long-term safety, Israel will have to accept short-term danger, in my opinion.


If you wait for the other side to act first, then you'll both just keep waiting and waiting (and killing and killing).  Palestinians will continue to want violence instead of peace as long as Israel keeps killing them, destroying their lives, etc.  They won't just spontaneously stop hating Israel without Israel changing.  Like you say, it's a matter of give and take.  If you wait for the other side to give something before you do, you'll wait forever.  To achieve peace, Israel will need to start giving even though at first they'll be getting nothing in return.  You need to give the palestinians some motivation to stop wanting violence (and using the miltary to do that has failed to work over and over again).

Basically, though, all your posts and statements have fallen into three types:
1.  justification--things like "but remember that palestinians did..."or "we live in fear so..."  these are things that you use to excuse Israeli violence.  They may well be true, but they will never bring about peace.
2.  rejection of responsibility--things like "if only palestinians would..." or "we have no control..."  Things that imply that Israel has not choice in the matter, no ability to make change.  It's treating Israel as an object in the sea, with no ability to choose it's own actions.  This most certainly isn't true, and also leads to a continuation of the violence.
3.  rejection of the cure--things like "you're being unrealistic" or "Israelis can never accept..."  These essentially imply that peace isn't worth the cost of achieving it, in your view.  That's for you to decide, I guess.  Maybe Israelis really do prefer the current situation to what would be needed to achieve lasting peace.  If so, the status quo will be maintained, and Israeli will have enemies on its borders forever.


EDIT:  This has been in the news that last couple days here in the UK, and is sort of relevant to a point you brought up a few days ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7850407.stm
A collection of charities wanted to air a show on the BBC to raise aid money for rebuilding Gaza, and the BBC has decided not to air it out of fear of appearing partial.
This message was last edited by the GM at 10:59, Mon 26 Jan 2009.

I saw this in the news today, and it really sort of drove home what I'm thinking about this conflict:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02...ddleeast/04gaza.html

The last line sort of sums up what I see as the problem.  It's a quote from a palestinian woman, who lived in a town in Gaza which had a history of peaceful interaction with Israelis:

That is just it though, they aren’t all the people of Gaza are they, most of them are the people who were forcibly repatriated to Gaza by Israel in the first place.

It is by occupying what used to be Palestinian land that the Israelis generated so much anti-Isrealie feeling in the first place, your solution seems to be more of the same.



Historically speaking, occupying another state doesn’t usually result in the determination of support for the forces that are fighting the occupiers, it generally has the reverse effect.



Its not the Israeli culture they have the problem with, it is the occupation of Arab land by Israelis they have the problem with.

Ghost

I certainly feel the Israeli's do have a difficult time where they are. But they are entitled to protecting themselves.

I think a major problem in the neighboring area, is how much support terrorists have there. There are plenty of people who do not want to see children and families harmed in those areas, but unfortunately there is so much support for groups such as Hamas, or other like minded terrorists that plenty of people are affected in a negative manner.

Ultimately if my neighbor supported buying illegal drugs, it does have an impact on me. I don't support illegal drugs, but having people near me that do would impact me. Supporting terrorism would have an even bigger impact then supporting drugs I would think.

Israel have to protect themselves, and ultimately it will mean innocent people will be impacted. If the police come to arrest my neighbor, and a shoot out occurred, it places me in danger. I still would want the police to come and arrest my neighbor.

I certainly feel the Israeli's do have a difficult time where they are. But they are entitled to protecting themselves.

They're not protecting themselves. They've been doing that sort of thing for decades, and it hasn't stopped terrorism.

I think a major problem in the neighboring area, is how much support terrorists have there. There are plenty of people who do not want to see children and families harmed in those areas, but unfortunately there is so much support for groups such as Hamas, or other like minded terrorists that plenty of people are affected in a negative manner.

A fair number of them support terrorist groups because of the way Israel responds to terrorism.

Israel have to protect themselves, and ultimately it will mean innocent people will be impacted.

Thus creating more terrorists.

I'm not talking about every specific encounter Falkus. Certainly every war has made mistakes. However, Israel cannot just keep having rockets fired at citizens. If your house was fired on daily, would you allow it? Would you ask that it be stopped?

I'm open to suggestions as to how Israel should be able to stop rockets without taking action?

I'm not talking about every specific encounter Falkus. Certainly every war has made mistakes. However, Israel cannot just keep having rockets fired at citizens

That perhaps the Zionists should not have acted in a manner in the thirties and forties that taught Palestinians that terrorism was an effective method of acquiring what you wanted.

If your house was fired on daily, would you allow it? Would you ask that it be stopped?

Those are not comparable analogies.

I'm open to suggestions as to how Israel should be able to stop rockets without taking action?

Since taking action very demonstrably has not stopped it in the past, why do you automatically assume that taking action should be the default response, instead of not taking action?

So then Israel should allow as many rockets to be fired into the city and kill people? I don't think I agree that what happened in the past should mean Israel should allow as many people to be killed as terrorists want to kill.

I just disagree. That's like saying if your neighbor shoots at your children, you have every right to shoot at his children at a later date.



Make a comparable one that says they should allow people to be killed by rockets. I'll be open to that.

So do nothing but allow more rockets to be fired? I'm not positive it would work.

Should the canadian RCMP not go after gang members and stop them from committing crimes? After all, more gang members show up anyway.

You have to take action. I don't feel doing nothing would stop the rocket attacks.

Occupying armies have to expect that the indigenous people will fight back, even when forcibly displaced at gunpoint from thier own land and herded into concentrated areas.  People tend to get upset about that and want thier land back.

Perhaps Israel should consider not trying to trap the people who are in Gaza (I won’t call them the people of Gaza, as that implies they are from there as opposed to from what is now Israel).



Or perhaps, and here is a radical idea, Israel should stop trying to seal Gaza behind a wall so they don’t have to face the dispelled Arabs they forced off their own land at gun point and should consider trying to find some way of recompensing them for occupying their land.  As a general rule, such tactics have, historically speaking, proved much more successful at ending conflict.


You keep saying neighbour as if the populace of Gaza are indigenous to there, rather than having been forced out of the rest of what is now Israel and herded there.  Gaza is a giant Geto where the Israelis have put the troublesome indigenous people who used to own the land that Israel now stands on.

If Canada annexed one of the Northern states, then forced the American citizens into a small area of it and tried to seal it off, I suspect those displaced Americans may behave in a manor not at all dissimilar to Hamas.



There is action and there is action.  Obviously they need to do something, but trying to recompense the people they have oppressed would probably serve to reduce terrorism a fair bit faster then trying to terrify them into submission.  After all, how should the people of Gaza respond to Israeli terrorism? (and before you say Israel isn’t engaging in terrorism, their actions from the 40s onwards has fitted the definition of Terrorism laid down in the Westphalia accord, which was the bit of international legislation which defined the term!)

So do nothing but allow more rockets to be fired? I'm not positive it would work. </quote>

The notion that the only two options are to either behave as Israel is doing, or not act at all is a false dichotomy, these are not the only two options.  Besides which, as pointed out, this course of action has not worked before, why would it work now?

Do you generally repeat a course of action you have tried before even though you know it has never worked?

If an employee was to continually repeat behaviour that had not achieved success in the past, do you suppose his employer would applaud his tenacity or sack him for incompetence?

Hold on now. I think you're all being a little unfair to the Israelis here. You seem almost smug in the idea that not acting in defense is the beat all solution. I've seen no evidence to suggest this is the case.

What's being called upon by several members of this community, as well as much of the Western world, is unprecedented. To ask a country who is constantly under attack to do nothing about it. You act as if the U.N. has compassion for the Israelis plight. This is not the case, as far as history has gone to show, nor within it's current structure. The vast, vast majority of resolutions involving the Middle East relations with the Israelis are anti-Israel, not the other way around. In fact, it wasn't until this last week that the U.N. even had a proposed resolution to condemn Hamas for it's rocket attacks; prior to this, according to the U.N., this was solely Israeli's blame.

It is also not the case that that Israel has any responsibility for why Palestine doesn't formally exist as a nation. That is their own doing. Do you really not think that, if Palestine formally declared itself a state, that Israel wouldn't recognize it? It is simply not their prerogative. They are far more concerned with the destruction of Israel. While it is true that a blockade is in place between Gaza and the rest of Israel, this blockade was only put into place after Hamas took power. Which, from my perspective, isn't unreasonable. When the land next door decides to elect people who make no mistake that their number one priority, according to their very charter, is to destroy your home, you tend to take measures to protect yourself.

This is especially the case when the police of your neighborhood, the U.N., will never, ever take action to protect you, and, in fact, will condemn you for even attempting to put up resistance. They treat Israel as if, no matter what happens, it should always put more consideration for their enemies than any other nation has in the history of mankind. It's especially hypocritical, considering that there isn't a single nation that's a part of the U.N. that would actually respond in the way they demand Israel to respond. The U.S. certainly wouldn't  not take military action if it were constantly attack. Britain sure as hell wouldn't. Neither would France, Germany, China, Japan, not even the Middle Eastern nations. They would react exactly the same, if not even worse, and yet, they not only scold, but condemn Israel for doing so. It's no wonder Israel doesn't let many U.N. authorities in on their activities. If someone you trusted with sensitive information decided to out you to the rest of the neighborhood and tell everyone what a horrible person you are for doing something they didn't like, would you make the mistake of trusting them  with such information again? The idea that the U.N. would be surprised at such a reaction is, frankly, audacious.

Putting this aside, lets allow this idea of unresponsiveness for a moment. I'd have to say, however, that you're attributing much to the other side that's nothing but pure assumption without much evidence to back up. For example, you assume that the Palestinians and Gazans actually would sympathize with the Israelis. What has ever given the impression that they would be? They voted in Hamas, knowing full and well that their number one priority was to attack Israel. In fact, that was essentially their campaign promise. And, knowing that, they overwhelmingly voted them into power. Even more recently, the ceasefire was violated, as everyone knew it would be, by the Palestinians. Whereas the Israelis had decided to send in ground troops to help curtail civilian casualties, the Palestinians (not just Hamas, but much of the muslim world) celebrate when an Israeli school is blown up, especially the greater when children are actually inside. So I ask for evidense in what would actually make you think that the Palestinians would actually feel compassion for Israel under any circumstance.

If you're willing to admit this plan isn't perfect, then I'd like you to falsify your plan. How long would Israel have to wait, without taking action, before you consider the possibility that maybe the Palestinians won't stop until Israel is destroyed? Six months? A year? A decade? What if, in a hundred years, the attacks never stop? Would then you admit this waiting didn't solve anything?

The people getting hit by rockets include private citizens. These terrorists are not targeting the military, they are targeting families and children.

Well we know back at 2000, the camp David summit was rejected by Palestine leader Arafat, even though Israel conceded to 95% of the demands made. Arafat was asked to make  counter demand, and none was offered.

So understandably, it does seem difficult to understand what Palestine wants with Israel, as offers are turned down even when they nearly meet what is asked for.

So while Israel has tried to meet demands, they have not been met in return. And then we still have the current problem of rockets being fired at them.


No, I said neighbor because it was an analogy so that it could be somewhat personalized. I merely meant people living next door.

Why would Canada go into one of the northern states? Did this northern state start attacking Canada? I feel the analogy is missing the history of what happened before the annexing.



Sorry, but I do not believe Israel is engaging in terrorism. I'm going to need to see more evidence.

Currently however, I have to still feel that Israel has the right to defend themselves from these rocket attacks.


I just want to add Vexen has put forth a very good view of very real concerns.
This message was last edited by the player at 04:40, Mon 09 Feb 2009.

Perhaps, but what they're doing is going beyond "protecting themselves," because on average they kill 10 palestinians for every Israeli that dies.  But more importantly, they're not actually getting any protection from doing so.  Like I've said a number of times now, the rockets are just the symptom of the real problem, which is palestinian hatred of Israel.  You can't make people stop hating you by dropping bombs on them.  The limiting factor isn't the number of rockets.  There will always be more rockets.  The limiting factor is the number of people willing to fire the rockets, and the number of people willing to tell those who fire rockets to stop.  Each time Israel bombs Gaza, or bulldozes people's houses, or whatever, the push people into the first group, and out of the second.


Exactly!  And the actions Israel takes only increases the level of support.  Every time Israel kills one terrorists and the five innocent people that are next to him, a lot more people start supporting the terrorists.


Again, this is precisely it.  There is so much support for them because everyone is affected when Israel retaliates.  To solve the problem, Israel needs to get people to stop supporting Hamas and other terrorists groups.  And dropping bombs on them does just the opposite.


This is a good analogy.  If your neighbor starts doing something illegal, and putting you in danger, you would be against that.  You would do what you could (which might not be much) to stop them, and would speak out against them.  But if the police come into your neighorhood, shoot your family, bulldoze your house, and every house on the block, and kill 50 people in the process, then you'd probably end up hating the police more.  Your anger would be displaced from the neighbor, and redirected towards the people that killed your children.  That's what happens in palestine.  There are people who don't like Hamas there, and want Hamas to stop firing rockets.  But every time Israel comes in and kills off some of their family members to get at Hamas, many of those people start hating Israel more than they hate Hamas.  If it happens over and over, they start to support Hamas because Hamas is making Israel suffer.

Even though you and I might see Hamas as the root cause of palestinian suffering in Gaza, the people living there don't.  They only see that it's Israel weapons that are killing their children and destroying their homes.  As long as they view Israel as the source of their suffering, rather than Hamas, the problem will continue, and rockets will still fire.


But how many of your family members could die in during the arrest before you thought it wasn't worth it anymore.  If the police just drop a huge bomb, and kill everyone on your block, would you think that was reasonable?  Perhaps so, but most people would feel it was overkill, and wrong.

Your post is talking about justification, which is what most people think in terms of, because it's human nature.  "I'm allowed to do this, because you did this other thing."  That's how we tend to think, but in cases like this, it's totally counter productive.  It doesn't bring peace.  Justifying the violence doesn't bring peace any closer.  Both sides feel they have a right to defend themselves.  Both sides feel they are justified in taking the actions they're taking.  And it doesn't matter at all who's right or wrong.  Being right won't bring either side peace.  Only when one side decides that peace is more important than getting even, or more important than not letting the other side get away with a crime, will there be a chance of moving forward.  As long as both sides keep thinking just in terms of reacting to past violence with more violence, the situation will remain the same.



No, it's not the past that matters.  The reason Israel needs to not kill 10 palestinians every time an Israeli is killed is the future.  I know, it's entirely counter to human nature to let someone get away with such a horrible crime.  But if they want peace, Israel will have to do a lot of "turning the other cheek."  Lots and lots.  A painful, horrible amount of it.


This is just the kind of thinking that drives the situation there.  Israel feels that because Hamas shoots rockets at Israel, Israel can drop bombs on Gaza.  Everyone is always looking backward, saying "The other side did X!" and justifying their actions.  The analogy you give is a good one.  If someone shoots your kid, and you in turn shoot theirs, they're not going to stop and say "Okay, looks like we're even."  They're going to try to shoot your other kids, and your wife.  It's just going to escalate.


Yes, that's human nature.  They did something, so you feel you have to do something back.  That's how we normally think.  But it simply doesn't work here.  The idea that's so foreign, and so powerful, is that you don't have to take action.  There's nothing that's actually requiring you to kill someone when someone you love is killed.  You don't have to hit back.  You don't feel this would stop the rocket attacks, because you're viewing this as a problem of a few people that Israel could eventually kill.  Something like "Well, if we just killed off Hamas, then the problem would go away."  But you need to realize that you can't kill of Hamas with violence.  Hamas grows in response to violence.  It gets stronger when Israel retaliates.  It gains power when Gazans suffer.  That's why they do all the horrible things they do, like hide in schools, and fire from civilian areas, etc.  They do it because they want Israel to harm civilians and kids, because when they do, more people start supporting Hamas.  Reacting to Hamas' attacks is playing right into their hands.  It's exactly what Hamas wants to happen.  Which is why Israel should not do it.

Does that mean Israel will suffer?  Yes.  Does it mean evil people will be getting away with attacks on innocent people?  Yes.  but it's the only way to get long-term peace.  Israel needs to stop driving people to Hamas.  I needs to stop causing so much suffering that, and palestinians would rather die trying to kill Israelis than keep on suffering.

To achieve peace, Israel needs to put the goal of peace above the goal of victory, or justice, or fairness, or being seen as 'right', or anything like that.

It's not an issue of fairness.  Fair is killing one person for everyone that is killed, and that leads to everyone dying.  "fairness" is a different goal from "lasting peace."  Unfortunately in this case, you can't really have both.


In part because it's not been tried for any great length of time.  However, if you agree that hatred of Israel is the root cause of the problem, then it follows that to solve the problem you have to reduce the levels of hatred.  You simply can't do that with military action.  No matter how justified you are in dropping a bomb on someone, they're always going to dislike you for doing it.


Not do nothing exactly, but close enough, yes.  And yes, it's unprecedented.  It's entirely counter to human nature.  It seems entirely unfair, and it is.  But again, if you place peace as the goal, instead of fairness, then that's the course to take.


And everyone one of them gets vetoed by the US.  Having an ally on the security council means that the UN essentially cannot take an anti-Israeli position.  The US has more or less removed the UN from the equation, by preventing any action that doesn't make Israel out to be the good guy.

Also, you have to ask why much of the world has far more compassion for palestinians than Israelis.  Why would that be?  The simple answer is that palestinians are suffering far, far more than Israelis.  Yes, the rocket attacks on Israel are horrible.  No one denies that.  But the amount of suffering they compare pales in comparison to the suffering of palestinians.  It's not even the same ball park.  That's why much of the world leans towards the palestinians.  That's why there's less compassion for Israelis.  Is that right?  Is that how it should be?  I don't know.  And I don't think it's particularly important.  If Israel wants sympathy and compassion, there's only one way to get it: to suffer more than the palestinians do.


Israel would not recognize the state that palestine would declare for itself.  If you mean would Israel recognize a palestinian state just inside Gaza and those parts of the westbank that settlers haven't claimed?  Sure, but that would be total victory for Israel.  That's like saying "If palestinians would just give up, then Israel would accept their surrender."  While it may be true, it's not particularly meaningful.


Some of them, yes.  And more of them take on that view with every family member they lose, or every home they have destroyed.  Israel's military action drives people towards that type of view, which is why it's so counter productive.


Again, that's justification thinking.  We can do X, because you did Y.  It's human nature, but it's not helpful.  It doesn't move things forward, it only makes them worse.


And try to kill them before they kill you, apparently.  Again, it's human nature, but it's not productive.  It doesn't bring about peace.  Yes, Israel does have a neighbor which wants to destroy it.  The question is how to change that.  How to make palestinians care about fixing palestine more than destroying Israel.  And the answer is to take away their motivation for destroying Israel.  Stop acting like the evil force they believe it to be.  Stop being the oppressor they view it to be.  Stop causing suffering.  Convince them that Israel really isn't a bad country.  Not with words.  Not with justification.  But show them.  Make it clear with actions that Israel isn't out to make life miserable and short for palestinians.  You think this is obvious already, but it's very much not obvious to the people living in Gaza.  You can argue it should be obvious all you like, you can say the people of Gaza should know that Israel isn't evil, but the bottom line is that right or wrong, Gazans don't see that.  They don't know that it's true.  And the only way to convince them is to radically change the behavior of Israel.


I think this isn't accurate.  The UK faced a different but analogous situation with northern Ireland.  But it responded in a far different way.  It did respond, yes, but not with the overwhelming force that Israel uses.  Israel makes a publicly-stated policy of disproportionate retaliation.  Ie, "if you hurt us, we're going to hurt you back a whole lot more."  The UK managed to achieve peace in northern Ireland, in part by not doing that.  By not using the full extent of the force they had available.  Would other UN countries do the same?  I have no idea.  And, again, I don't consider it important.  The "other UN countries would do the same" is more justification thinking.  It's giving a reason for your actions, not acting in a way that will bring about peace.  The fact that you can find a bunch of other people that would make the same bad decision that you are making doesn't make your decision any better.


For one, they're human beings.  For another, there are Palestinians with friends in Israel.  I read an article about a village in Gaza where many of the people had a long history of dealing with Israelis, and had lots of Israeli friends.  During the invasion, they were all on their cell phones, calling their friends in Israel, asking them to do something to stop it.


Actually, Hamas' campaign promise was to improve the situation in palestine, and get rid of the corruption in Fatah.  Not that they made good on that promise, but they didn't actually run on the "we'll destroy Israel" platform as much as you might guess given their charter.  Again, though, that's all besides the point.  Palestinians voted for Hamas because they were tired of the situation.  They wanted change.  They were tired of the suffering.  It was their suffering that drove them to Hamas.  That's what Israel has to change.  They have to give palestinians a reason not to support Hamas (and no, dropping bombs on them doesn't seem to work, as much as it might seem like it should).


You don't seem to view the palestinians as human beings.  You don't seem to feel they are capable of human emotions like compassion.  This is part of the problem.  Demonization of the other side.  If you start believing that they're incapable of such things, it makes it easier to kill them, to make them suffer, because you don't view them as humans.  Many palestinians want peace.  Many of them want a 2-state solution.  Many of them don't like to see innocent Israelis killed.  But every time they lose a family member, they're pushed towards violence and hatred.  If you haven't seen the film "Promises," I highly recomend it.  It's a documentary about kids in Israel and Palestine, from a number of different families, social classes, religious views, etc.  The guy who made the film set up a trip for a pair of Israeli kids to go visit the palestinian kids, and they got along really well, and started a friendship that lasted beyond the end of the filming.  The most outspoken palestinian child, who was sure he hated everything to do with Israel, and who was sure he wouldn't get along with the Israeli kids was the one who became friends with them (and later moved to the US to get out of the region).  Palestinians are people.  Yes, some of them are set in their ways at this point, and will never be swayed.  But most of them want peace.  Your view that they will always hate Israel for ever is essentially saying that peace is impossible.  It's an admission that peace will never be obtained.  I do not accept that view, and think that kind of defeatism needs to be avoided.


I would have to guess something like 25 years.  This very much isn't something that will happen over night.  Because these feelings of hatred are so entrenched, that we'd be depending more on the next generation than on the current one.  We'd be depending more on the people who live their whole lives without being bombed, or without having their house destroyed, or without ever knowing anyone who's been killed by the Israeli military.  When those people start to vote, when they start being a significant political block, things would change significantly.

To turn the question around (and, it was a very good question, by the way), now that 40 years of the current retaliatory strategy has gone by, without peace being achieved, are you willing to say it hasn't solved anything?

I disagree. I think this is an issue of fairness. Fairness is the whole reason this is an issue in the first place. Simply because you don't desire to value it in the matter doesn't mean it's not an issue. It's simply an issue you wish to quite bluntly ignore.

However, I have to ask...what if Israel isn't interested in peace? What if they just want the missiles to stop? Would you consider them evil?



Worked pretty well in Japan... (Kidding!)

Yes, I agree that the root cause of the problem is the hatred of Israel, but you've yet to actually demonstrate that this tactic will work. Possibly if Israel were a bunch of emotionless robots, it might. But they're not. And I feel that your solution bluntly calls for them to be just that. Palestine is allowed to act on human impulses, but Israel is not. Why not ask the same of the other side? I've heard little to nothing from opponents in this matter about the responsibility Hamas and even the people of Palestine have in this. It almost seems like one sided compassion, or at worse, downright favoritism.



That's not entirely fair. All the U.S. has stated is that they won't accept any resolution or action that isn't equally sympathetic to the Israelis. That is why the new resolution condemns both Israel 'and' Hamas. And it took them a lot to get to that point.

But, the nations of the U.N. do take a position, regardless of whether or not the U.N. can. And they can still make their voice heard, as it has many times in the past. Having an ally on the security council may save them from facing restrictions and military activity against them, but most of the U.N. has set condemnations against Israel, and has for many many years.



I actually have to question that. The U.N. seems to brush off the rocket attacks til very very recently as virtually not an issue. They haven't shown much concern. When Hamas broke the ceasefire, I didn't hear the U.N. condemning Gaza. When Palestinians blow up civilian buildings, as they have for years now, I haven't heard any protest from the U.N.. But the moment Israel took on this offensive, it was portrayed as complete genocide. I would say that it seems like the nations around the world sorta accept the activities of Palestine as a given, as if it's a right they should have, but it's more than that. It's completely, unfaltering bias. The majority oppressing the minority. It's the active demonization of the Israeli people.



Wait a minute. You're actually blaming Israel for not accepting the notion that their land, a land that is recognized by the entire world community and the U.N. itself, is actually Palestinian territory? And that Israel doesn't actually exist, as the Palestinian authority states? That's their fault? So, if there was a people, lets call it "Bobland" who declared itself a state, and claimed their land included all of North America and England, in it's entirety, is the other nations fault for not accepting that their land is actually rightfully a part of Bobland?

They have to play by the rules, just declaring nonsense isn't how the world works anymore, nor am I really believing that's how it ever worked. They have to accept the land they already have, not just claim everything they want too. If that's the case, Iran would extend it's claim to the entire world. And no, that doesn't mean that it's asking for a surrender. That's ridiculous. They can always work with the Israelis to get more land, or, more likely, start a war for it. Maybe officially declaring itself a nation and going to war would really set this thing for how it really is. Gaza declared war on Israel. It's nothing less than that. But, because they're not officially a state, that gives them some sense of unaccountability, apparently.



And how would it come to know that? If Gaza isn't informed on the situation, there's likely a very good reason. Predictably, you seem to blame Israel for that, as you seem to for much of the situation. It's not that Hamas or the Palestinians are spreading misinformation, of course. They would never do that. Just like when Hamas declared victory for Gaza when the ceasefire was made. That was the honest truth, wasn't it?

No one has a completely objective and total view of the world. Not you, not I. Not Israel, and not Palestine. For the most part, your world is constructed by what information you can get from the environment you live in. If Israel stopped attacking, do you think that Hamas will really report that it's by Israel's good will that they did this? No, absolutely not.  It'll be because Islam is winning the war against the blasphemers and it's enemies, the Jewish scoundrels. If an attack doesn't occur, it'll not be because the Israelis never planned one, it'll be because Palestinian forces thwarted it. It'll be because Hamas is actively keeping them safe. Remember, too much of Palestine, Israel doesn't exist. It's all rightfully Palestinian land. They're just occupying forces, terrorists. If, for some reason, all terrorist activities against the U.S. stopped, do you really think they would tell the people that it's because the terrorists are really just good people and they did it out of compassion and kindness? I doubt that very much, even if it was the truth. And something tells me we wouldn't stop our pursuit against them either.

If the Palestinian people refuse to recognize Israel, and truly see it as their land, do you ever really think that they will see the Israelis as any more than terrorists? Taking that into perspective, perhaps peace isn't only about one side seeing that the other isn't evil, but also, having to redefine their dynamic of the world, and the way they understand it. That Israel has a right to exist. Do you really believe that any amount of waiting will make that happen?



I thought you would bring that up, actually. I don't feel it's an appropriate analogy, however. Ireland wasn't actively launching dozens of missiles at each others civilians neighborhoods. Ireland didn't state it's purpose of existence to destroy the U.K.. And Ireland didn't refuse to accept that the U.K. exists as anything more than terrorist occupiers of their land.  And, to be fair, this offensive from Israel, as many in the past, wasn't the first response, by any means. You act as if Israel jumped into war with the slightest of provocation. This isn't the case.



You're saying that the Gazan people didn't know that Hamas was going to attack Israel? That this was a complete surprise that didn't respect the wishes of the Palestinian people? Hamas has been around for several decades now. They are known as an anti-Zionist group. The entire world know, well before the elections ever finished, that they were going to attack Israel. How is it that you can accuse the Palestinians of being completely ignorant of this? During the elections, they stated that they would only consider peace with Israel if they withdrew from all Palestinian land, including Jerusalem and the West Bank, and recognize Palestine. They also expressed a specific need for the militant arm of Hamas to be "a legitament part of the Palestinian security structure." What did they think was going to happen?



I never said they weren't human. But you seem to possess a little more optimism over what it means to be human, placing values that I don't really see as evident. Yes, as humans, they are certainly capable of feeling compassion, sympathy, love, longing, and pride. These are some of the finer aspects of humanity.

However, as a student of history and psychology, who sees just a glimpse into the depths of the human mind on a consistent basis, I can tell you that there is much to the opposite side as well. Humans are indeed compassionate, sympathetic, loving creatures, but they can also be vindictive, spiteful, apathetic beings as well. And, most disturbingly, what people often don't realise is that they can be both at the same time. Almost every murderer and serial killer has a good side to them, a side that even the most hardened psychoanalyst can feel sorry for.

There's a common saying that goes "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." I've always liked that saying, because I see much truth in it. History seems to agree, as it also has gone to show the much of the world's greatest atrocities were committed with good intentions. The Crusades, Witch Hunts, McCarthyism, torture (both modern and historical), slavery, Imperialism, the "domestication" of the Native Americans, all of these horrifying acts can easily be connected to simply compassion, and a desire to help.

So, Tycho, you may see me as demonizing the Palestinians, as seeing them as less than human. However, I don't. I simply accept that this is a part of being human. There's no need for demonizing anything. Humans are already capable of anything either of those can do. And not just bad people from evil places either. This potential lies within each of us.

It simply seems that, when competing interests are had, we often subconsciously place a value of one over the other, and when there's a choice of compassion only for one side or another, we will turn a blind eye towards that which concerns us less. You can see this in the Prop. 8 discussion, where the pro-homosexuals demonize the conservatives, and the conservatives are virtually compassionate for gays, often resorting towards technicalities instead of addressing the feelings of those involved. Because it's easier to accept that the other side might actually feel, and that your decision might actually hurt them. They had to deserve it somehow.

You can likely see it in this discussion as well. From Elana. From Falkus. From Tycho. And likely, from me as well. The issue itself seems little different. Their culture seems to be one that leaves little room for compassion for the Israelis on this matter. Just like their stance on women, how I see it as barbaric inequality, they see it as giving women proper respect they deserve, with the rules in place to help keep them safe and happy for the rest of their life. Maybe not all of them feel this way, which I'm willing to admit. Maybe some Palestinians do feel for the Israelis, and do feel that their nation should exist. I'm not saying that it's everyone. But they're just as capable of demonizing as we are, and from what I've seen, people rarely sympathize with demons.



This is why I keep saying that this is entirely one sided on an unrealistic level. Let's play with this a moment. The idea is to wait for the next generation of Palestinians to come and vote out the current rabble rousers. Let's take out the possibility, for a moment, that the current group wouldn't do what it did with the last group, and just try to assassinate the opposition, thus allowing free elections. This sounds like a swell plan from that perspective. If, once again, we treat Israelis as unemotional robots that are not allowed to have natural human emotional response.

Lets factor the emotion into Israel, please, and stop treating them like they aren't human. They get attacked for over a decade straight, and their government refuses to do anything to protect them. Tens of thousands of lives are lost in that time from the resulting rockets and attacks. After seeing a decade of these attacks occur, of losing family, of seeing children die, and the enemy celebrate everytime they hit a hospital or school, what do you think is going to happen at the next Israeli election? Do you not think the populous won't be angry at the Palestinians? You give the reasons that Palestinians hate Israel as seeing their breathern die time after time. Is it not possible that, after ten years of constant fire, that the hatred stops being one sided, and starts becoming mutual? Maybe now, the Israeli people not just want the rockets to stop, but want to eliminate Palestine from the face of the earth, much like they do to Israel. And, just like Palestine voted in Hamas, what makes you think that now Israel won't elect an equally militant group to replace the government that is apathetic to their safety?

I think that demanding this of the Iraelis is completely unrealistic idealism. You give good reasons in why, in your mind, the Palestinians hate the Jewish people. You have done everything short of justify them. Yet, when you apply them to the other side, you seem to react with disgust, and place the entire blame on Israel. It's not Palestine's fault for reacting with normal human emotive response. But it's Israel's fault for their natural emotive response. Are you sure that I'm the one who's demonizing here?



I think you had it earlier. I made no impression that anything could bring peace to the situation. Not military response. And not no response. I don't think it's within Israel's power to bring peace to the land. Something would have to change rather drastically for me to believe otherwise. And I doubt both Israel and Palestine are capable of meeting such a challenge. Not because they're not human. But because they are.

And many would agree with you, and say that fairness is more important to them than peace.  If so, they'll end up with fairness (such as it is), and not have peace.


Evil for simply wanting that?  Perhaps not.  Evil for what they would have to do to obtain it without a lasting peace?  Yes, definitely.  That's sort of the crux of the matter.  The only ways to stop the rockets are to obtain a lasting peace (which will require major sacrifices on their part), or to crush palestinians so completely that Israel would have to be evil to do it.  It's not evil to want the rockets to stop, and to want justice, and fairness, and all these other things.  But it's unfortunately not possible to have them all.


To a degree this is true.  What I propose does call on them to not act on their human emotions.  Not robots, really, but more like martyrs.  Christ-like, if you will.  Are they capable of that?  I don't know, honestly.  Is it realistic?  Again, I don't know.  But it's the best plan for obtaining peace that Israelis can implement, as far as I can see.


I should clarify that I am writing from Israel's perspective here, as in "What can Israel do?"  That's the reason for the position of asking Israel to take these actions, not because I feel the other side bears no responsibility, or because I favor them, or anything like that.  I do feel that palestinians are suffering more than Israelis, and I do feel like it is more realistic (though, that may still not be realistic at all) to expect Israelis to undertake such a campaign than palestinians, simply because Israelis have the more comfortable situation.  I don't see it as a matter or responsibility, because I think both sides bear full blame for the current situation, and pointing fingers will not lead to progress in my opinion.  So it's not an issue of favoritism.  I believe palestinians could also take action to achieve peace.  It would start with getting rid of Hamas, and other terrorist groups, but continuing showing the world that the conditions they live under are unjust, and demanding action by the rest of the world (and by Israelis).

However, since I guess it's easier for me to put myself in Israeli shoes, as it were, I tend to focus on what Israel can do to solve things.  Israel can't make palestinians make the necessary sacrifices to achieve peace (just like palestinians can't make Israelis make the necessary sacrifices).  It's easier for me to relate to Israelis than to palestinians, because the Israeli situation is closer to the one in which I live than is the palestinian.  That's why I write from a "what can Israel do" point of view, not because of bias against them.


Yes, and if Israel wants to change this, it has to change the situation.  Nations will tend to care more about the people who are suffering the most.  If you show them Israelis, and say "look at the rocket attacks!" they'll be moved, but they'll forget that as soon as they see what life in Gaza is like, because it's much worse.  If it were only Israelis suffering rocket attacks, they would get much more sympathy.  When it's Israelis and rockets, and all the suffering that palestinians go through, the palestinians end up with the sympathy.  If Israel wants more sympathy than palestine, it will need to suffer more than palestine.


You need to realize that that's largely because Israel did more damage, caused more suffering, and killed more children, in just a few weeks of this campaign than Hamas did a year of rocket attacks.  It's not that the UN sees the rockets as not an issue, it's that member states see them as not an issue when compared to the suffering in palestine.


Again, yes, this is true.  The question is, what can Israel do to change it?  I feel the answer is to stop causing more suffering than they're experiencing.


You're misunderstanding what I'm saying.  There are people in Gaza who have land deeds for land in Israel.  There are people who were forcefully removed from their homes, and pushed into refugee camps.  You're saying "well, if they just accept that refugee camp, there'd be peace."  And yes, that's true, but that ignores much of the reason that palestinians are upset in the first place.  Even most Israeli political parties accept that some of what is now considered Israel would need to be given over to palestine in any 2 state solution.  The current area occupied by Israel includes land that even the US accepts as being part of palestine.


Starting a war for it is more or less where we're at right now.  It's what I'm hoping we can stop.  If your solution is more fighting, I think we disagree on what the problem is.


Hamas is spreading information, but it can't very easily tell people they're being bombed every day, when they're not.  It can't easily tell them that Israel is bulldozing their houses, nor killing their children if these things aren't actually happening.  Palestinians will know if their lives are getting better or not.  And yes, if their lives get better, Hamas will likely take credit.  But so long as it's not leading to increased hatred of Israel, who cares?  The longer it goes on, the more absurd Hamas claims will look.


In the respect that Hamas has far more popular support now than it did before the fighting, yes, it seems like they did win.  Hamas may even come to power in the West Bank now, due to people there being frustrated with Fatah.  Overall, it seems like a clear victory for Hamas, even though it was a huge loss for the palestinian people.  This is what I've been saying over and over: Hamas wins whenever Israel harms Palestinians.  A military victory by Israel is a political victory for Hamas.  And Israel reaching only a partial military victory (ie, the rockets are still flying), leads to an even bigger political victory for Hamas.


The majority of palestinians accept Israel's right to exist, and want a 2 state solution.  However, every time they see a family member die, more of them get pushed away from that, and towards the view that all Israelis are terrorists.


Already many palestinians believe this.  But less of them do when Israel uses its military.  The less suffering Israel causes, the less palestinians will view them as terrorists.  It will take time.  People don't forget seeing their loved-ones killed in just a year or two.  But they can get over it.


The IRA and the palestinians did.  "One cause, two peoples," or whatever they used to say.  Were they very different?  Yes, no doubt.  But there were important parallels, and to ignore them is dangerous, in my view.


No, that's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that most of the people who voted for Hamas didn't vote for them for that reason.  Did they figure Hamas would keep shooting rockets?  Yes, I imagine they did.  But that wasn't the reason most people voted for them.


Okay, you asked if they were capable of it.  I feel that as humans they are. Am I more optimistic?  Perhaps.  Perhaps its more of a case of being less fatalistic.  You seem to have given up on peace.  You don't seem to consider it worth trying for anymore.  "We can't get peace, so let's at least get revenge."  You may be right, but I really hope you're not.


Yes, it's one side (and I explained why above), and it very well may be unrealistic.  All I can do is say "here's how to get peace," and let them decide to do it or not.  They may view the price of peace as being too high.


It's not so much treating them as though they aren't human, but asking to rise above some of the worse qualities of human kind.  Might be unrealistic, yes.  But to assume it's impossible seems like giving up on peace to me.


Yes, it's entirely possible.  I don't know if Israel can realistically make this happen, as I've said a number of times.  They might not have the strength to obtain peace, I fully realize that.  But as I say, I can only give the suggestion of what to do, and see if they can do it.


I absolutely do not justify the actions of Hamas, nor do I place the entire blame on Israel.  Let me make it very clear, that I find blaming one side or the other to be largely pointless.  Both sides have done enough atrocious things, that it's pointless to try and figure out who is worse at this point.  I'm very much trying to look forward, because looking backwards has gotten no where for decades.


It's not a matter of fault.  I can see why both sides do what they do.  But I also see that what they're doing is counter productive.


Well, I would suggest that those who have given up at least step aside and let those who haven't keep trying.  You think peace is impossible.  Fine, you may be right.  But if so, is there any harm in trying for it anyway?

I have a hard time trying to feel empathy for the Palestinians ever since they voted Hamas into power.  If you vote a terrorist group into power, how much sympathy can you expect?

I have a hard time feeling sympathy for either of them, but I have a harder time believing that Israel is just defending itself.  If this had been a couple thousand years ago, it'd be like the David and Goliath story written all over again.

I have a hard time trying to feel empathy for the Palestinians ever since they voted Hamas into power.  If you vote a terrorist group into power, how much sympathy can you expect?

One could say much the same thing about Israel, which elected Menachem Begin as Prime Minister, the man who orchestrated the King David Hotel bombing, which killed ninety-three innocent civilians.

And this lack of sympathy is a large part of what keeps the peace process from getting anywhere.  Again, justification-based thinking pushes peace further away, rather than bringing it closer.

An interesting article in the news today about the place of religion in the Israeli army:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03...eview/22BRONNER.html
Were some army rabbi's telling soldiers that the recent invasion of Gaza was a holy war to expel non-Jewish from Jewish land?  Did a book handed out to soldiers by rabbi's that contained an edict against showing palestinians mercy contribute to abuses by soldiers?

How about giving the Palestinians a poorly constructed nuclear power plant?

My prediction:  Iran is going to finish it's nuclear weapon and test it on Israel to send a message to the world.  I was listening to a "spy" on the radio the other day who used to be on the inside, and he was predicting this.

(scribbles "spy" on resume)
I hate to say anything like this, but the likelihood of this actually occurring is more than a little remote. They may finish their program, they may develop missiles. They will not be launched in my life time.

Are you on your deathbed?  :)

I think this will happen within a decade, particularly given that they are developing the long range missile deployment systems.

Granted, we might stop them or invade or something drastic, which would prove me wrong.  But insiders say that this is their intention.  Also, Iran is on good terms with China and Russia, which have facilitated their long range nuclear capabilities.  And China has trained Iran.






http://www.jewishvirtuallibrar..._to_Israel/Iran.html

I think the threat is real and imminent.  Iran is more dangerous than just about any other country, IMHO.

I think the threat is real and imminent.  Iran is more dangerous than just about any other country, IMHO.

So what if they get nuclear weapons? They're not going to use them, it would be suicide. The United States would retaliate and destroy Iran.

My prediction:  Iran is going to finish it's nuclear weapon and test it on Israel to send a message to the world.  I was listening to a "spy" on the radio the other day who used to be on the inside, and he was predicting this.

Iran wants nukes for the same reason any other nation wants them. Deterrence. Nothing else. They will no more use them than the United States or Russia or France or Britain would.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:03, Wed 25 Mar 2009.

While I may disagree with Iran on a lot of points, and think they're a totalitarian state, they're at least a rational totalitarian state. They want a deterrent weapon (and for good reason). Iran really is on the defensive on a lot of fronts against far, far larger opponents. I am not especially concerned about Iran getting nuclear weapons (at least not in the short term), since they've made it clear their goal is to survive as a nation - and that's not something they'll achieve if they actually use those nukes, including against Israel.

I'm more worried about Pakistan (which is fragmenting at a nation, and therefore undependable) or North Korea (which is led by a crazy) getting nuclear weapons, and since one of those nations already does have nuclear weapons, I am indeed very worried (on the flip side, I don't know that the US would reciprocate if Pakistan used its nukes against India, nor is the US a possible target).

Does the U.S. have interests in India worth defending or retaliating over? As much as I like India, I suspect that the answer is "no".

Not that I'm aware of, no. India is considered an ally, but I don't think we'd immediately retliate.

Some of you may disagree with me, and I hope I'm wrong.  But if you read through the link I posted, I think at least you'll have to admit the danger is real.  Even if Iran doesn't use the nukes itself, it's past assistance to terrorist organizations shows that it very well might put those nukes into the hands of a group that actually will use them.  And heck, it's threatened more than once to blow Israel off the map.  And that's just the overt stuff.

You really think Obama would retaliate?  One problem he has is that he's talking to these people.  His most recent statement to them, when interpreted by Iran experts, was to show them he's very unmanly and not to be respected.  (That's what the Iranians said, not me.)  They don't respect his diplomatic approach, and he needs tutoring in their culture before he starts babbling on.
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:29, Wed 25 Mar 2009.

In reply to Heath (msg #135):

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm disagreeing with the "expert". He's wrong. Will NOT happen.

I don't generally talk about it, but I was on the inside as well. Won't happen.

I think it's a danger, but I think it's an acceptable risk.

However, I do agree, Obama has to continue to employ the MAD strategy in order to mitigate this risk. If we stop saying "hey, if you shoot Israel, we'll blow you out of the water", Israel's odds of getting vaporized have gone up significantly (although to be fair, the safety of the US has also gone up, so maybe Obama is in fact pursuing the right course by his constituents).

Culturally, the way he spoke to them is never appropriate.  In essence, they saw him speaking as a woman would speak, which will NEVER get him anywhere in Iran.

Perhaps. But he still has the world's largest nuclear arsenal behind his words, which give his speech a fine point, regardless as to its presentation.

Actually, one of Obama's campaign promises was to disarm the U.S. nuclear arsenal:



He recently repeated something to this effect (and I think it was to the Iranians or another Mid-East group), but I don't have the quote right here.







EDIT: THese are different articles I just pulled up real fast on the Internet.  My main source was from non INternet sources.
This message was last edited by the GM at 23:51, Wed 25 Mar 2009.

Actually, one of Obama's campaign promises was to disarm the U.S. nuclear arsenal:

That seems to be a remarkable and deliberate misunderstanding of what he said. Arms reduction is not the same thing as total disarmament. The US has been planning on cutting its active warheads down to 2200 from 5500 since 2002 because of the SORT treaty, this is not something that Obama just pulled out of his hat.

What do you have against disarmament anyway? The US would still have more than enough nuclear weapons to maintain deterrence, and it would be a good step in convincing the rest of the world to back away from these very, very dangerous weapons.

Indeed, the US can downsize for a long time and STILL hold more missiles than any other nation. Most nations have maybe 8 missiles. The US has thousands. You really only need so many before the planet is dead.

This message was deleted by the player at 13:00, Mon 27 Sept 2010.

This message was deleted by the player at 00:32, Sat 02 Oct 2010.

Bumped for Kathulos.

Hi guys. . . I remembered something about the Israeli/Palistinian Conflict so I did some searching on You Tube and found it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...&feature=related

What do you guys have to say to the idea that the Jews didn't steal anything from the Palistinians?

I'm not sure of the background here, but when one nation or ethnic group takes something from another nation or ethnic group, it is raiding, seizing, or invasion, not theft. It's not like millions of people snuck in in the middle of the night, picked the locks and made off with the silverware and artwork.

I see. But did you see the first video on You Tube yet?

Because what your saying doesn't make sense in that light.

Seems like the same, black-white, We're-right-you're-wrong, good-vs-evil, over-simplification that the extremes on both sides like to spread.  As a general rule, when one side uses the bad actions of the other side as a justification for their bad actions, they're not really looking for a solution to the problem.  This guy certainly didn't put forward any solution (other than the implied "God's gonna come sort it out in our favor any minute now" bit at the end).

In the first clip he attacked a straw man, and used (in my view) misleading techniques to frame the debate in favor of one side, while glossing over or complete ignoring the other side of the issue.  Similar to what the extremist on the other side do, and equally as helpful.  (an example is him saying it's a "great lie" that Israel stole land/property from palestinians, because the palestinians moved out before an invading army came in.  He doesn't mention that Isrealis then moved into the property that the palestinians fled, and refused to give it back to those who did and/or still do want to move back to their former homes.  Is that "stealing" or something else?  Does it really matter?  People lost their homes, and are told they can't have them back.  The label isn't nearly as important to me as how we address the problem and move forward).

The second clip seemed like simple 'muslims-are-all-evil' muckracking.  He didn't seem to see any difference one muslim group from another, feeling free to use what one extremist said to represent the entire group.  It makes as much sense as saying "because Hilter killed 6 million Jews, we can plainly see that europeans hate jews."  There are plenty of bad folks doing bad stuff and saying stupid/hateful/disgraceful things on both sides.  We should reject them in all cases.  We shouldn't use what one side says to justify the other side's actions or statements, however.

The third clip was the same "my holy book says it's ours, so it is!" argument that keeps this problem from ever getting solved.  Both sides (or the extremes of each side) are 100% convinced God is on their side, which means they have no desire to come to a compromise.  The sizeable groups in the middle that are willing to come to a compromise are repeatedly foiled by the extremists who don't want a peaceful resolution, but instead want complete victory over the other side.  If the argument depends on getting the other side to accept that your holy book is better than theirs, you can pretty much count on the argument failing to convince them.

The main problem I had with the clips is that they didn't offer any solution, merely blame.  There's plenty of blame to go around, and pointing fingers is what people on both sides have been doing for decades now, and it hasn't got them anywhere.  The guy in the clip seems content to just let the situation continue until God comes down and lets us all know that He's picked a side.  For the rest of us, that's not really much of a plan.

The situation that Israel has to face is this:  The population of palestinians in the occupied territories is growing faster than the population of jews in Israel.  That means if Israel continues with the status quo, it will either have to A) not be a democracy, or B) not be Jewish.  They can have one or the other, but they can't have both, because the palestinians will be in a majority, and if you give them the vote, things will change very fast.  If Israel wants to remain a jewish democracy, the status quo can't continue, which means coming to a 2 state solution, or committing genocide.  Having been on the receiving end of genocide, I don't think they'll have the stomach for dishing it out (thankfully), though some of the more radical settlers might favor that approach, so they'll have to come to some 2 state solution.  And to do that, they'll have to reach a compromise with the palestinians.  And a compromise doesn't mean complete victory.  That's what I think many in the extremes of Israel can't come to grips with.  They're willing to give up a few things here and there, but they want to set all the terms.  If the guy from these clips had some input on how to get the two sides to reach a compromise, I'd be much more keen to hear what he has to say.  If he's just going to point out why Israel shouldn't compromise, then I have little time for him.

Incorrect Tycho. Hal Lindsey (The guy in the video) has addressed that recently. It's a myth.

Your last paragraph is false, but it fools even the Jews in Israel.

Edit-

I'm looking for a source to cite right now for that.
This message was last edited by the player at 17:33, Thu 25 Nov 2010.

1) seizing the houses isn't theft, it's an invasion.
2) as to letting them move back is that an immigration issue or property rights? (are they just not being *given* the houses back but could buy them back?

as to the future a 2 state solution is one possibility- so is partial democracy (only Jews get to vote, for example, or some other criteria which gives jews a greater proportion of the vote than their numbers would tend to suggest...
there are a few other options short of genocide.

When they let the folks in the west bank and gaza strip vote in Israeli elections, then you can tell me it's a myth.  Until then, it's his word against everyone else's.  When arabs can run for office in Israel without restriction, then you can tell me it's a myth.  But don't expect me to just take your, or Hal's, word on it just because you've picked a side that you feel is 100% in the right.

Let's put it this way:  Kathulos, why do you believe what this guy tells you, rather than what others tell you?  What makes you trust him, and distrust others?  Why do you believe him when he says "it's a myth" or "it's a lie" rather than the people saying its the truth?

For my part, I tend to be skeptical of anyone who presents a black-white, completely simple story, where one side is blameless saints, and the other is 100% evil.  That's not reality, and whenever someone tries to tell me it is, I think they're more worried about the outcome, than in presenting the truth.

To put it another way, this guy strikes me as the type of person who'd be willing to bend the truth in order to get benefits for his "side" because he thinks it's God's will.  He's more goal focused, than process focused (or appears so from what I saw in these clips).  He cares more about who wins at the end then about doing things the right way and ending up wherever that takes us.  There's plenty of folks on both sides of the debate that will tell you everything the other side says is lies, and that everything is the fault of the other side.  I don't have much patience for any of them, whether they're pro-israel or pro-palestine.  I'm much more interested in the opinion of those who are pro-peace and pro-compromise.  There are plenty on both sides who want peace, I'd even wager a majority (though, sadly, I wouldn't wager all that much on it), but unfortunately the extremes tend to have more sway their numbers would justify.

I don't want to sound like I won't listen, but do realize that this guy saying "it's a myth" isn't enough to convince me, not by a long shot.  You saying "your last paragraph is false" isn't going to convince me either.  Give me some evidence to change my mind, and I'll consider it.  But if you're just expecting everyone to accept your (or Hal's) view simply because you voice it, I think you're expecting too much.

I'm not expecting too much, that's for sure. If the Arabs win the invasion against Israel, the Jews will die. That's why Israel has to stay and remain strong. And they're doing a good job, as far as I can tell.

Now, as to being Pro-Compromise, like I said, if Israel is pro-Compromise, they are pro-Suicide.

This message was deleted by the player at 17:52, Thu 25 Nov 2010.

Then everyone agrees with you?


Yep, plenty of people on both sides who think compromise is unacceptable.  You'll forgive me if I don't put too much stock in their proposed solutions, though.  This Hal guy not only thinks that global war over Israel is inevitable, but desirable (because it's God's will, in his view), and it sounds like you're agreeing with him.  I'm not inclined to accept the policy advice of someone coming from that perspective.  If war is the goal, it's an easy to achieve goal.  It's avoiding war, and achieving peace that's much harder, and in my view at least, a far better goal.

You don't think peace is possible, and that's fair enough.  At times I can get pretty pessimistic about the situation, and I'm not sure that peace is possible given the extremes on each side right now.  On the other hand, it sounds like you don't even think peace is desirable, and that's where we reach an impasse.
This message was last edited by the GM at 18:15, Thu 25 Nov 2010.

But see, you're wrong. What Hal and I want is real peace. The only kind of peace that can exist among the Middle East in Israel is a peace born of a strong Jewish state.

It is true that we both believe that war is inevitable and it will be horrible, but we don't want it to happen.

What the situation really is about is accepting our Holy Scriptures as Gospel (heh)while keeping in mind that before everything gets better, it's going to get worse.

To reiterate, we know that war is coming, and we don't want it, but there will come a day, according to Scripture, where everyone will be at peace. War has to come first.:(

It's a shame I can't believe in such a blissful world view. Then, after a war like that described, I could finally rest in peace.

Yep, and that's where we're not going to come to agreement then.  I'm still hoping (perhaps naively) that peace is A) possible, and B) desirable.  You want the "peace" of victory, that's the same kind of "peace" that Hamas and Amidinejhad want (though for the other side).

We don't share the same goal, so we're not going to agree on the best course of action.  I think war is something we should try are damnedest to avoid, you think it's part of God's plan.  That's going to lead to radically different ideas about what the best way to handle the situation is.

I think if Hal and you made that point from the start, it'd save people a lot of trouble.  Those who agree with your goal (a war which Israel will win because God favors them) can listen to your suggestions for actions, and those who disagree with your goal (who, say want peace through compromise) can realize that you're not trying to get to the same result as them, and skip arguing over the details.

Just keep in mind that I'm coming from the position that if all the world wants something true to be false or if they want something false to be true it doesn't make it so.

But it does seem, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you feel the future is predetermined ("God's Plan"). Therefor there is a true/false future. If not than there is a wide range of possibilities that allow for the possibility that no such war ever occurs.

As long as you apply the same thing to your beliefs. ;)  You believing it with 100% of your being doesn't make it so.  If you want other to accept that they can be wrong, but are unwilling to accept the possibility that you're wrong, you're not likely to get very far.

In my view, its the people who think God is on their side, and thus they can't be wrong that are the cause of much of the problems in the middle east.  Trust me, there are plenty of people in Hamas that are every bit as convinced that God is on their side that you are that He's on Israel's.  Being sure doesn't make you right.  In most cases it's a sign that you haven't looked critically at your own assumptions, or considered the other side's position fully.  I tend trust people who show a bit of uncertainty far more than I trust those who claim absolutely certainty in their own correctness.

Just to give you something to think on, though, consider the fact that your religion is causing you to view a massive war as necessary and unavoidable, and because of that you favor positions which avoid peace through compromise.  Your religion has made you, in this case at least, pro-war.  I find that a bit disturbing, and I would hope it'd at least give you pause.  I know it's not going to change your faith at all, but it might make you think about it a bit deeper.

I believe Israel has a right to defend it'self. If that makes me pro-war then I'm pro-war. :)

As for my beliefs, well they aren't on trial. What I'm discussing is Israel right now. But I could talk about my personal beliefs in another thread.

Of course, because of my Christian belief I believe that Israel must exist as Jewish property but I don't see a problem with that.

Afterall, sometimes Israel even tries to accomadate them (palistinians).

I'm trying to get my head around the idea that if Israel is invaded then all teh Jews will die. I mean going back to Old Testament accounts it has been invaded what a dozen or two times already? many of those including long term occupation and the current day Israel wasn't even a nation until the 20th century... how is their getting invaded going to cause Jewish communities in New York and Florida to suddenly drop over dead?

6,000,000 dead wasn't enough?

Let's make it 8,000,000!!!

No, that doesn't make you pro-war.  But not wanting a peaceful compromise does.


On trial, no, but if your beliefs influence (or determine) or position on Israel, then a discussion of Israel is, at it's heart, a discussion of your beliefs.  Treating them a separate has the potential to lead to extra bickering about side issues, I think.  In this kind of thing, getting at the root of the disagreement is the important thing, in my opinion.  The reason you and I disagree about the 2 state solution, say, isn't because one of us thinks Israel "stole" land and the other doesn't, but rather because we disagree on whether the bible should set our foreign policy.  Focusing on stuff like whether we should call Israel's occupation of the west bank and Gaza "stealing" is missing the real issue, for example.


Heh, and the muslims who believe that Israel must not exist as a Jewish property also don't see a problem with their position.  To me, it's the fact that you don't see any problem with your view that is worrying.


But that's not what you're suggesting, though, right?  A peaceful compromise isn't what you think they should aim for, no?

I think that if you viewed the You Tube video correctly, you'd realize the Palistinians should have their own state in Jordan. Not Israel, in the first place.

Completely ignoring the fact that they were living there prior to the Zionist immigration and were forced off their land by terrorist actions by said Zionists....

According to whom?

The federal government and various Native American nations have managed to come to workable 'two state' solutions despite far greater differences in theology than what exists between Jews and Muslims. And in that case both sides acknowledge that the land was orriginally in possesion of the NA nations. Of course both sides also recognize the rights of conquest as well, which helps reduce teh finger pointing and multi-generational militarized conflict.

According to whom?

Crack open a history book; I recommend works by Bickerton or Anderson. Read about the King David Hotel bombing. Look at three quarters of a million Arabs who were forced off their own land after the formation of Israel. Look how Zionists rendered countless thousands of Arabs homeless during their land grabs in the twenties.
This message was last edited by the player at 12:29, Fri 26 Nov 2010.

Sure crack open a history book. Written by whom?

Leaving aside the fact that I specifically pointed out two authors in my post, are you seriously going to start denying that events like the King David Hotel Bombing or the massive forced migration of native Arabs didn't occur?

Ok.. Minor nitpick. What are Bickerton and Anderson's last names. More importantly, how credible are they?
Oh, and the King David Hotel bombings were a result of the British betraying Jewish refugees during WWII.
This message was last edited by the player at 17:45, Fri 26 Nov 2010.

Ok.. Minor nitpick. What are Bickerton and Anderson's last names. More importantly, how credible are they?

I'll give you the full names this evening when I can get on my home computer and check out the essay I wrote during my university years.

Oh, and the King David Hotel bombings were a result of the British betraying Jewish refugees during WWII.

And of course, that makes blowing up a hotel full of innocent people ABSOLUTELY okay.

No. It doesn't. Are you sure they were innocent people?

I'm not saying they weren't. Just curious.
Here is the other side of the story.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrar...tory/King_David.html
This message was last edited by the player at 17:55, Fri 26 Nov 2010.

I want to make this simple point.

After 6 million Jews were butchered in the Holocaust the Jewish people in Israel will not let it happen again.

Thank you very much. That's an excellent point.

The problem is that the international community igorantly sees Israel as the mutant Magneto, who survived the Holocaust and currently uses his super powers to exalt mutant kind above the non-mutants.

If anyone here asks them to let that happen, then I will argue strongly against them.  Until that point, I'm not sure what this point has to do with the discussion.  As horrible as the holocaust was, I don't think it means the Jews are somehow allowed to inflict suffering on anyone else.


Umm...I haven't heard anyone suggest that Israel is magneto, or is using super powers.  If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm happy to look at it.  But right now it looks like you're just strawmanning here.

I constantly hear about Israel bullying others and then calling other people who call them on it as Anti Semites.

This has nothing to do with Israel. Israel is not an evil bully state.

This has nothing to do with Israel. Israel is not an evil bully state.

Tell that to Rachel Corrie.

Hell, tell that to the nine people who were executed on the MV Mavi Marmara.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:41, Fri 26 Nov 2010.

After 6 million Jews were butchered in the Holocaust the Jewish people in Israel will not let it happen again.

And that gives the IDF a carte blanche to murder whoever it pleases, does it?

No. It doesn't. Are you sure they were innocent people?

Oh, my apologies. I'm sure the cooks that died in the canteen had actually been members of Hitler's inner council.

And that website you linked to is amazingly inaccurate. The act was reviled? The man who planned it was elected Prime Minister of Israel.

The main problem with the media coverage of what happens in Palestine, and especially in Gaza, is that the media aren’t there. Journalists haven’t been allowed to enter Gaza for years, whenever the Israeli army doesn't want them to be there; it happened recently during the last bombings, when hundreds of civilians were killed.

http://entertainment.aol.ca/ar...ttons-rachel/609265/

She was unarmed, and run over by a bulldozer who's driver had a clear view of her.

Those are the only relevant facts in this matter.

The official Israeli response stated that Corrie was killed by debris pushed over by the bulldozer, that the driver did not see her, and that the bulldozer was clearing brush and not engaged in a demolition when Corrie blocked its path.

She was standing behind debris which obstructed the view of the driver and the driver had a very limited field of vision due to the protective cage he was working in.”

An IDF spokesman has acknowledged that Israeli army regulations normally require that the drivers of the armored personnel carriers (APCs) that accompany bulldozers are responsible for directing the drivers towards their targets, because the Caterpillar D9 bulldozers have a restricted field of vision with several blind spots.[23] However, the Israeli army commander of the Gaza Strip said in an interview broadcast on Israeli television that on the day of Corrie's death, soldiers had to stay in their armored vehicles and were not able to direct the bulldozer or arrest the protesters, because of the threat of Palestinian sniper fire

"When the bulldozer refused to stop or turn aside she climbed up onto the mound of dirt and rubble being gathered in front of it... to look directly at the driver who kept on advancing."[24]

The IDF produced a video about Corrie's death that includes footage taken from inside the cockpit of a D9. It makes a "credible case", Joshua Hammer wrote of this video in Mother Jones, that "the operators, peering out through narrow, double-glazed, bulletproof windows, their view obscured behind pistons and the giant scooper, might not have seen Corrie kneeling in front of them."[6]

The eyewitnesses gave a different account, noting that on at least one occasion, her head and torso were clearly above the level of the blade, and other ISM activists present clearly shouted her location to the driver. A construction vehicle operator who would proceed under those conditions, here in Canada at least, would be found guilty of either murder or criminal negligence.

Possibly criminal negligence, if the eyewitnesses are to be believed.

Nevertheless, one useful idiot for Hamas on the Israelies side does not Israel the dark kingdom of Mordor.
This message was last edited by the player at 00:25, Sat 27 Nov 2010.

Possibly criminal negligence, if the eyewitnesses are to be believed.

And of course, a GOVERNMENT REPORT, is the bastion of truth.

Nevertheless, one useful idiot for Hamas on the Israelies side does not Israel the dark kingdom of Mordor.

No, it makes the IDF a terrorist organization, when factored in with everything else they do. Bulldoze civilian homes, drop bombs and fire rockets into civilian areas, execute protesters on flotillas, etc. etc. etc.

Hamas are bad guys, yes, but the IDF is no different. They're both terrorist organizations. The only difference is in the uniforms and how expensive their weapons are.

(An American Speaking) Not all governments are as bad as ours.(ba-dum-tish)
But it seems that we disagree on so much on this, the only positive outcome is to agree to disagree.
This message was last edited by the player at 00:44, Sat 27 Nov 2010.

I don't know that 'agreeing to disagree' is really any help in this case. After all, that's what's causing the two sides to shoot at each other in the first place. Rather, finding a place to agree, then working from there seems to be a much more productive idea.

In the US or Canada I don't believe you would find a bulldozer willing to procede under sniper fire, assuming the government report is accurate on that point.
And people who throw themselves into the line of traffic, whether bulldozers or a California highway, are not murdered. maybe manslaughter up to possibly depraved indifference,but certainly nobody sought out the target to try and go kill them, the target came and put themselves in harms way.
To me the whole thing is simply absurd- what you have is essentially a war zone with both sides claiming they aren't there to fight they are just innocent bystanders being slaughtered by the evil mechanizations of the other side. It's a war people, which means that people get killed, including innocent people. take responsibility for it because both sides are responsible- either can back off and give up if teh slaughter were really so horrifying for them to contemplate. But in teh meanwhile acting like it isn't a war and obfuscating who is military and who isn't, closing your eyes to shoot (metaphorically at least) so you can say you aren't aiming at your enemy means that the civilian casualties will be higher not lower.

But it seems that we disagree on so much on this, the only positive outcome is to agree to disagree.

Well, I'll leave with one last thought then:

Human lives are more important than ideology.

On the other hand, the value put on life is an ideology in itself.

Can you have a war between non-state actors? If an individual fires a gun from my neighborhood, does that make me also 'at war'? Is the other side justified in destroying my house in retaliation? The people who are making the decision to fight do not represent even the majority of those suffering the slaughter.

There can be war between non-state actors, but these are either groups representing an ideology (such as Al-Queida), groups representing a state which has been eradicated, conquered or which they have otherwise been disposessed of (Tibet, Northern Ireland, at one point Bohemia), or groups seeking to seize pwer within the state which they occupy (revolutionaries) "I shot someone in another neighborhood" in not an act of war, it requires an organization rather than simply an individual act. Now if your neighborhood association decided it could improve property values by occupying a nearby neighborhood with the purpose of reducing drug dealing or prostitution while the organized crime making use of the low enforcement profile of that neighborhood decided to strike back, that could be described as a war. Inter-crime organization rivalries frequently escalate to levels described as war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...&feature=related

This message was deleted by the player at 14:06, Tue 30 Nov 2010.

In reply to katisara (msg #195):

I'd say that you definitely can have a war between non-state actors. Gang wars, for instance.

Are the deaths of nine people really something appropriate to mock>? Is this really supposed to convince me of the moral superiority of your side?

The video doesn't seem to be mocking the deaths of nine people, so much as they are mocking the deceiving nature of the flotilla.

EDIT:

You know what, forget it, I'm out. It's not worth the headache.
This message was last edited by the player at 17:31, Tue 30 Nov 2010.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...ose-peace-concession

...

In reply to Falkus (msg #203):

so Falkus.. based on all the articles linked to this one how do you feel?

That Israel clearly has no interest in peace in the region.

I would say that it is clear depending on which sources of propaganda you choose.

Does either  religions preach peace?

I would say the saddest part of the conflict is the use of the Palestinians by the Arab nations and anti-Semites as pawns against the evil Jews.  Say what you will but Israel has been more than willing to displace their own people by force to accommodate the peace process.  When Israel gave territory back to the Palestinians they immediately turned it into a launch pad.

Both religions preach peace. and war.

I would say it is less about religion and more about political manipulation.

What's propaganda got to do anything? The leaked documents make it pretty clear that the Palestinian negotiators conceded to just about every demand that Israel had, and it still wasn't enough for Israel.

Say what you will but Israel has been more than willing to displace their own people by force to accommodate the peace process

Um, no. Illegal settlements have been one of the key issues for a long time.

Hmm... I"m going to out on a limb and suggest to you that one fuck up, excuse my language on one negotiation isn't enough to undermine the country's credibility when this conflict has been raging on for so long.

There's a vast difference between making a mistake, and completely and absolutely refusing to accept an incredible deal with the potential to end the conflict in the region. The Palestinian negotiators gave up just about everything that the Israeli's wanted, and it still wasn't enough. That's not a 'fuck up'.

Yes it is. . . Ecspecially when the other side has been doing it for a longer time period than the other.

Um, no.  The settlements are not illegal in the first place.  The various agreements reached between Israel and the Palestinians since 1993 contain no prohibitions on the building or expansion of settlements. On the contrary, they specifically provide that the issue of settlements is reserved for permanent status negotiations, which are to take place in the concluding stage of the peace talks. The parties expressly agreed that the Palestinian Authority has no jurisdiction or control over settlements or Israelis, pending the conclusion of a permanent status agreement.

And the PA.. or Hamas wants peace?  Do Israeli TV shows ask people to kill muslims?  Does Israel name parks and school or sporting events after it's terrorist?  Is it worse to kick people out of their homes and bulldoze them or to send people into the neighborhoods and blow themselves up?  Why hate on Jews if both claim to be descendants of the same people?  (all actual questions that interest me)

Looking at the numbers (Which differ everywhere) show more Palestinian deaths, alot more, which I feel is bad.  But I can't justify siding with Palestine when they preach hate.  I can't blame Israel for not accepting anything because I wouldn't wanna settle a yardline dispute with a neighbor who is still gonna pump his sewage in the middle of my yard.

If Israel would have accepted the offer, would you have been upset at the Palestinian Authority for selling out? (I think it looks like a sellout)

You seem to be misunderstanding my position.

I don't care about Palestine or Israel or provisional authorities or any of that crap.

What I care about is the fact that people are getting killed, and nobody in authority in the region is trying to work towards a solution.

Hamas doesn't care about peace, that much is evident. They're a group of terrorist thugs with a history of targeting civilians and violating human rights left and right. But so's the Israeli military. There are no good guys in that part of the world.

The only thing I care about in that region of the world are the civilians getting killed.

But I can't justify siding with Palestine when they preach hate.

I can find just as much hatred on the Israeli side as I can on the Palestinian one.

  Um, no.  The settlements are not illegal in the first place

Are we reading the same history books and news reports? Because from what I can tell, the settlements are pretty much one of the two big roadblocks in the peace process.

I am reading the history books that state the facts as they happened.  It doesn't matter that the settlements are a roadblock.  What matters is that Israel is within its legal right to maintain and build such settlements until the conclusion of the permanent status agreement.

By all means, prove me wrong.

I don't give a damn about 'legal rights'. I care about human lives.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:51, Thu 27 Jan 2011.

As I've said a few times in this thread in the past, there's unlikely to any kind of resolution as long as both sides will only settle for victory, rather than compromise.  Both seem to prefer perpetual violence to giving anything up for peace (though the leaked documents might imply otherwise for the PA).  I also think that both sides seem to view the wrongs of the other side as justification for their own actions, and both have such a long list of wrongs to point at, that it doesn't seem like there's much room for peace.  Even in this thread you see it over and over.  "It's wrong to do X!" "Well, its MORE wrong to do Y!"  Even if that's true, it doesn't really negate the first statement, but the argument is used that way over and over by both sides.

Not that it's particularly important (since laws don't really seem to make much difference to the problem), but because it was asked, most people consider the settlements to violate the 4th geneva convention:

The 4th Geneva Convention is inapplicable here because of the legal concept of "occupied territory".  Who lays claim to Gaza and the West Bank?  What nation?  Who is the controlling nation that is disputing this territory?

That is why the terms to the final borders and settlements needs to be negotiated.  As it stands right now the settlements give the Palestinians an excellent propaganda issue to avoid taking responsibility for their own choices at the bargaining table.

I'm not sure it really matters who claims it.  Even israel considers Gaza and the west bank to be occupied territory (that's why people living there don't get israeli citizenship, can't vote in israeli elections, can't move around the country like israeli's can, etc.).   With the exception of a few on the far-right wing of Israeli politics, I don't think many people dispute the "occupied territory" aspect of palestine.

But again, it doesn't really make a whole lot of difference, since laws don't seem to matter as much to either side as does pointing fingers at past transgressions.

The point is that it can't be occupied when no one really had a claim to it in the first place.  That is why the borders of Israel and Palestine have to be negotiated and, within the framework of agreements between the Palestinians and Israelis, the status of the settlements was to be determined at the conclusion of the negotiations.

What the settlements are is a convenient stick to beat over the head of the Israelis.  The Israelis know this and so do the Palestinians.

In reply to Falkus (msg #219):

So you don't give a damn about historical fact or current fact.  Noted.  That means that you and I have nothing to debate since we operate from vastly different points of view.

That sort of defeats the whole purpose of that article of the geneva conventions, then no?  Go into a country, take it over by force, don't claim it but don't let it be free, and then its not occupied?  I'd say most people would sort of define "occupied territory" as one a country holds by force, but which isn't granted status as part of the country.  The lands that Israel didn't own before 1967, and that they control militarily now are occupied lands. Especially Gaza and the West bank, which Israel doesn't claim as its own territory (unlike East Jeruselem, which it does claim).  Part of the point of laying down the geneva conventions is to establish how an occupying power should treat residents until a formal treaty is signed establishing any new borders.


I'd agree that the status of the settlements will be determined at the conclusion of negotiations (should they ever reach a conclusion), but that's not the same as saying they're not illegal.


I'd probably agree, though I'm not sure that has any bearing on whether or not they're legal.

You asked for evidence of the settlements being illegal.  I gave you some, but you don't think the geneva convention applies to Israel, so fair enough.  Most of the world disagrees, but I don't suppose that matters much either.  Sounds like your mind is made up on the matter, so evidence is really beside the point.  What kind of evidence would convince you the settlements are illegal?  What laws do you think apply in this situation?  Is Israel free to do as they please, because there are no rules covering this situation?  If not, what rules do apply, in your view?

[Note--I just want to point out that I'm not trying to attack Israel with this topic.  Both sides have done plenty of bad things, some legal and bad, some illegal and bad, and both sides have had plenty of bad things done to them, again, both legal things and illegal things.  I'm only focusing Israel in the present case because Tlaloc asked for evidence of the illegality of settlements.]

So you don't give a damn about historical fact or current fact.  Noted.  That means that you and I have nothing to debate since we operate from vastly different points of view.

Whether they're 'actually illegal' or not is completely and utterly meaningless when it comes to resolving the situation in the middle east, since Israel thinks they're legal and Palestine thinks they are not. The actual fact of whether they're legal or not doesn't matter in face of how the two different sides perceive them.

When it comes to humans, you'll find that perception is frequently more important than actual reality when it comes to motivations and actions.
This message was last edited by the player at 17:47, Thu 27 Jan 2011.

In reply to Tycho (msg #225):



You missed the point.  No nation owns that land.  Does Jordan own the West Bank?  Does Egypt own Gaza?  You have to take actual territory from a nation for the GC to kick in.  These were disputed territories being negotiated when war broke out.  Those territories are now under negotiation and their status is to be determined.  They are not illegal, they are just awaiting legal definition as to who actually owns what.



The GC does not apply to the territories in question, not Israel.



Why legal evidence of course.  Many legal entities understand this concept and this is not my mere opinion but a legal judgement based on how the GC works.  I am not the voice in the wilderness and haven't bought into the historical revisionism that is so prevalent in this issue.

I am not taking this stand to be contrary, I am taking this stand because I believe it is the best interpretation of the law that was agreed upon by both sides not so very long ago.  Just ask yourself which side is dedicated to the eradication of the other.



There are laws but there is also the rule that Israel is allowed to defend itself.  I am of the opinion that if the Palestinians would denounce violence against Israel and admit that Israel has the right to exist that there would be an agreement pretty darn quickly.  There are militants on the Israeli side as well but Israel throws them in jail and doesn't proclaim them saintly matyrs like the Fatah and Hamas do.

Ask yourself how long should a country hold back a military response to a barrage of missile attacks aimed at its citizens.  Israel shows great constraint but at times I believe they are allowed to hunt down and kill those who perform, fund, and plan those attacks.

Messy situation?  Yes.  But the blame is not entirely on the Israelis.  The Arab nations have kept the Palestinians as convenient pawns in their wars and political manuverings against Israel.  It has not served the Palestinian people well.

And that is the source of this problem.  I prefer to live in the world of reality rather than just going with the flow of current perception.

Your response of "I don't give a damn about legal or illegal" shows that emotion rules your approach to this issue.  How has that worked for the Palestinians and the Israelis?

I think you are belittling Falkus' point.  His point has merit:  You can't say something is illegal or legal as an argument between two sovereign nations.

Nor will that demonstrate any ounce of moral rightness because they would each individually make laws that support their point of view.

In reply to Heath (msg #229):

So what do you suggest be the framework of a settlement?  Good feelings?  Finger-pointing?  How about seeing who can steer public opinion the best?

Or, perhaps, they use a legal framework where each one has a set of goals they would like to accomplish and an agreement as to how these goals are to come about.  Who would give away land or settle a dispute without a legal definition of what each side is supposed to abide by?

It is not belittling to point out the irrational behaviour that promotes this conflict.

Well, now you're saying something completely different.

There is a difference between treaties of sovereign nations and laws created by those nations.  In this kind of case, a treaty of some kind must be established.  Even if you try to enforce international laws, those do not have much teeth when confronted with nations who claim a birthright and/or religious right to land.

In other words, Falkus is correct that legal or illegal is a red herring.  Making such claims against sovereign nations is a way to incite worse problems.

In reply to Heath (msg #231):

But using the argument that the settlements are illegal is factually wrong and concentrating so much energy on something that, by an agreed framework, will be settled at the conclusion of talks is the real red herring.

My point stands.  Emotion has served the Palestinians and Israelis poorly.  The settlements issue is a lightning rod used to derail real progress.

I'm confused.  Did you just reverse your opinion?

Although this is undoubtedly an emotional issue, emotions are merely an effect.  The emotions are tied to political and historical claims that are not emotional but religious in nature.

It is not uncommon to use interim measures to get a tenuous peace until a final resolution.  I don't see the problem with that.  Not perfect, as in the settlements, but the alternative could be worse.

Let's say we knew, one hundred percent for sure, whether the settlements were legal or illegal, and could prove it.

What difference would it make? The Israeli's wouldn't stop putting them up if they were illegal, and the Palestinians wouldn't stop resenting them if they were legal.

The issue is their presence; not their legality.

Exactly right.

So legality doesn't have anything to do with the settlements.  Nor does the agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians regarding them matter.  Okay.

So the Jews should be removed from their homes in Gaza and the West Bank.  I guess it would help to have an ethnically pure Gaza and West Bank.  Once those territories are pure then things can be solved right?

Right. Whatever you say buddy.

I'm done here.

Yeah, I agree.  You're not making sense.  Your conclusion/solution does not follow from the facts.  You can always have agreements between parties without it being a legal/illegal issue.  We call that "diplomacy."  If diplomacy fails, it could end up in "war."

Is war illegal?  What if you don't recognize international laws or the UN?  That's the whole problem with dealing with sovereign states.

Ah, gotcha.  You're saying it's "not illegal" in the sense that there's no law for it to be against, rather than "not illegal" in the sense of following the law.  I'd disagree.  I think it's pretty well excepted that the westbank is occupied territory.  I think even people without an officially recognized government have rights.




Can you give an example?  Are there any laws that apply to the situation, or could Israel do absolutely anything at all and still have it be "not illegal" do to lack of laws for it to be against?


Sadly, there are plenty of people on both sides that would like to see the other side eradicated.  Probably more of them on the palestinian side.  But I think the majority of people on both sides would probably prefer to be rid of the other side, but at the same time would be willing to compromise with them for peace.  Unfortunately, it's usually the people with the most extreme views that are the most passionate and willing to do something to change the situation (or keep it the same, as the case may be).


Could you please tell me what they are?


Okay, but how does building settlements in the Westbank accomplish this?


I'd like to think so too, though sometimes I'm not sure.  Surely if they did that, and accepted an agreement to have no military, no land in Jerusalem, and no right of return, then there'd be agreement.  But likewise if Israel gave up all disputed land, and agreed to a right of return, there'd be peace pretty quickly too.  Sometimes I'm more optimistic that peace is possible, and sometimes I'm more pessimistic.  Right now I don't think either side is willing to give up much.  Or, rather, a sufficiently powerful group of people on each side is unwilling to do so.  I'd say most average joes on each side probably are.


I don't think I'd quite agree with that.  I can agree that the palestian side is worse at glorifying violence/militancy, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that Israel throws all its extremists in jail (unless by "jail" you mean settlements or parliament! ;) ).


A legitimate question, but not as easy a question to answer as you seem to be implying.  Rocket attacks against israel are wrong.  I am opposed to them, full stop.  On the other hand, they are a somewhat low-level threat to Israel.  Doesn't make them right, or acceptable, but it does mean Israel needs to be careful not to overreact to them, in my opinion.  I don't value Israeli civilians more than palestinian civilians.  If Israel kills 10 palestinian civilians to save one israeli civilian's live, that doesn't seem to be helping to me.  That said, though, I don't really see what that has to do with the legality of settlements.


Perhaps, but as they say, eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.  Both sides can keep targeting those who've killed their brothers or fathers or grandfathers or whoever else until the end of time, but it's not really going to solve the problem.  There's self defense, and there's revenge.  I think at times Israel crosses over into the latter, while calling it the former.  Some Palestinian groups does the same (though usually don't even bother to call it anything other than revenge).


Can certainly agree with that.
This message was last edited by the GM at 17:25, Sat 29 Jan 2011.

Currently Israel's government has strong leanings toward the right, Bibi has repeatedly shown that he will do whatever he can to slow down any peace talks (and there only so much pushing by the USA Bibi will take), while on the Palestinian side as soon as there is mention of peace talk one of their extremist’s do something to cause the possible talks to break down.

People need to understand that 'settlements' in the west bank are not real, they are put up by religious right wing nuts and are dismantled by the Israeli army as soon as possible, it's done to cause trouble, a publicity stunt. The world press need to stop focusing on it as it is a non issue. Israel dismantled established settlements and relocated there people many years ago, because it didn't make sense from a resource point of view to defend them, you really think Israel is going to claim a 'settlement' that consists of a couple of caravans?

I'm sorry to say that currently there’s no point in even mentioning peace talks seriously, even if the Israeli government wanted to sit down and talk, which it doesn't not with Bibi and Liberman running things. The Palestinian people are currently too fractured to talk seriously, Fatah doesn't have enough power and Hamas doesn't want peace.

Also please do not disparage all of Israel's military, is everything they do on the side of angels? (Could say the same about the American army) No but the majority of it is made up of people in their early twenties who sometimes see terrible things, so they make mistakes, i'm not excusing them, but people sometimes break under pressure. One thing you guys should know is that a large percentage of former soldiers have strong pro feelings towards the peace process.

A legitimate question, but not as easy a question to answer as you seem to be implying.  Rocket attacks against israel are wrong.  I am opposed to them, full stop.  On the other hand, they are a somewhat low-level threat to Israel.  Doesn't make them right, or acceptable, but it does mean Israel needs to be careful not to overreact to them, in my opinion.  I don't value Israeli civilians more than palestinian civilians.  If Israel kills 10 palestinian civilians to save one israeli civilian's live, that doesn't seem to be helping to me.  That said, though, I don't really see what that has to do with the legality of settlements.
</quote>

Ok I love being ignored especially as i'm the only one on this forum who actually lives in Israel! Also could you please read what Tialoc's above statement and realize how rediculous it is, the mere fact that the rockets are hitting things in Israel's cities is cause for concern, or did you not hear about the rocket in Be'er Sheva? I woonder how people around the world would react if a rocket landed in Boston, Manchester or Dublin, i wonder how those countries would react to having missiles aimed at you.

As i said before the settlements are a stunt a non issue, it's done for publicity, it's like when the religoius nuts bring huge stones up the highway to Jerusalem saying that they're going to rebuild the Temple, its done for noice value only.

Don't think you're ignored :) Some people just take longer to post than others (and not everyone follows every thread).

I know nothing at all about the situation in Israel, and I don't have any source of clearly unbiased information. I watch, but otherwise I leave it up to the professionals.

Sorry i was looking at the posts the wrong way round, used to be the newest posts were up....i think or am i thinking of a different forum maybe....

Well i'm hardly unbiased but i do support the peace process though theres no point talking peace right now as you have to have two parties willing to sit down and talk and neither are willing to do that, not really anyway.

But seriously the whole settlement thing is a non issue geared to stir up ill feelings towards Israel. Frankly im more interested to hear everyones take on what they would do if towns in their country was under a steady barrage of rockets, to the extent that the citizens were living in the bomb sheltes for over a month....oh just so you know every building in Israel by law has to have a bomb shelter. What do you think should be a responce in such a situation?

Do you have any source for what you're saying about the settlements? I had not heard that before.

I would largely agree with the synopsis, though it's sounding like you're taking it as a reason do nothing, whereas I see it more as indication that we need to change the current situation (e.g., Israel needs to stop voting in people who don't want peace to lead them, and the palestinians needs to shut down the extremists who try to derail the process).


I think this is problematic for a number of reasons.  First, Israel telling the palestinians that the settlements aren't an issue is like the palestinians telling the israelis that the rockets aren't an issue.  We don't get to decide for other people what isn't important to them, especially if we're the cause of that thing.  If Palestinians view the settlements as a serious problem, then they are a serious problem, even if you think they shouldn't be.  Further, if settlements aren't real, and aren't an issue, then Israel should have no qualms about banning expansion of them, like everyone has said they need to do (and which, I believe, they agreed to do on the roadmap, though I may be wrong on that).

Second, the settlements are real, and they're not dismantled by the army as soon as possible.  Over 300,000 Israelis live in westbank settlements.  Three of the settlements have over 30,000 people living in each of them.  Claiming that is "a couple of caravans" is misleading in the extreme.  Israel has dismantled some settlements in the past, and that's great, but to claim that they do this regularly as a matter of course seems misleading and inaccurate to me.


I often feel like the situation is hopeless, but when Israelis and Palestinians feel that way, the problem is all but doomed.  You're an Israeli, no?  There are few people in the world who have as much influence over the situation as you, if for no other reason than you being able to vote.  Of all the people in the world we need to not be thinking that peace talks are pointless are the people directly involved.  You shouldn't be telling us what your government wants, you should be telling your government what you want!


Yes, the rockets are most certainly a concern.  But two wrongs don't make a right.  All too often in this conflict the answer to "Your side shouldn't do X!" is "Oh yeah, well why is your side doing Y?!"  Rockets do not justify further expansion of settlements.  That isn't to say that rockets are acceptable (they're not), or that they're not important (they are), just that they shouldn't be used as an excuse to further scuttle the peace process.

As for what other countries would if they were getting hit by rockets, I imagine most would do just as much, and probably more than Israel, though that's not to say that they should do so.  Also, you need to keep in mind not only what these places would do in reaction to rockets, but also what they currently do that is different from Israel.  There aren't occupied territories near these place to shoot rockets from, which is an important difference.  Both sides view their actions as the only reasonable option to responding to the actions of the other side.  They both pull a "what else am I supposed to do when they do X?"  Israeli's say "what would you do if someone shot rockets at your town?!" and the Palestinians say "what would you do if you were forced out of your home and forced to live in a refugee camp for decades?"  Both sides ignore their own role in causing the actions they're reacting to.  It's a bit misleading to say "what would the US do if mexico shot rockets at them?" because the US isn't blockading Mexico, or building settlements in Mexico, etc.


If it's just a stunt, why not stop it?  What is the down side of stopping it, rather than refusing to do so when everyone says "stop settlement expansion?"  If it's just a few religious nuts, haul those religious nuts in and throw them in jail for derailing the peace process.  Both sides have to stop the extremists on their own side, rather than just blaming the extremists on the other side for all the problems.

Perhaps the reason Israelis seem so disinterested in "concessions" is that they do not buy them anything.  The ante is just upped over and over and over again.  When the goal posts move so often why bother to try to play the game anymore?

From a historical perspective, ten years after the worst war in history (WWII), with over 40 million deaths and millions of refugees, all of the refugee camps in Europe had been closed and everyone had been resettled. Why is this not the case 60+ years after five Arab armies attacked Israel in 1948?  To put it into even a sharper perspective, what happened to almost 900,000 Jewish refugees who were kicked out of their homes in Arab countries in the years after the Arab armies were defeated?  Resettled without any compensation for what they had to leave behind.  Look at how Egypt and Jordan treated the Palestinian Arabs when they controled Gaza and the West Bank.  What efforts were taken to create a "Palestinian" nation while those nations held those lands?

The Palestinian Arabs are used as tools by the Arab nations to beat Israel over the head.  The Palestinians themselves assist in this when they "vote" in Hamas to lead them.  When Clinton got Israel to agree to 90+% of the Palestinian terms at Camp David what happened?  No deal.  One would think that getting over 90% of what you are asking for would be a good start.  No so the Palestinians.

What happens to the billions of dollars in aid that has been sent to the Palestinians and why hasn’t that been used to help their own people? Why don’t most of their people have graduate degrees?  Where has the money gone?  What have they been doing with it?  Arafat died with a huge bank account.  I wonder how the Hamas and Fatah coffers are faring these days...

The Palestinians are a product of political gamemanship conducted by the Arab nations as well as their own leaders.  They are a blunt instrument to beat a Jewish state over the head.  They couldn't win militarily and have only propaganda and historical revisionism left.

Israel should be respected for holding back as much as it does in the face of the genocidal extremism they are surrounded by.  They have a right to exist and I believe the world holds them to an impossible standard.  Look at how the UN condemns them over and over and yet they seem to avoid discussing Zimbabwe, Darfur, North Korea, and company.

Feel free to disagree of course.

Tlaloc i completely agree with what you wrote, and I'm glad that you wrote it instead of me so people wont think i'm getting over emotional about the issue.

Tycho you say that Israel needs to make more concessions towards Palestine, but we did offer them almost everything they wanted, we even agreed to give them part of east Jerusalem, only two things did we say no on, that Jerusalem not be the capital of the Palestinians state and to the right to return for Palestine, every other condition we agreed to, hell even one of the Saudi princes reworked the deal and suggested it and it was still no go. If the Palestinians are so desperate for a recognized homeland they would take the deal, just like we did when the British offered the Jewish settlers the Balfor Declaration, but you need to realize that Hamas wont be satisfied until all the Jews in Israel are driven into the sea.

First of all Israel didn't vote in Bibi, the majority of which including me voted for Livni but she didn't want to compromise enough to for a coalition so she failed to form a government so the next strongest stepped in who was Bbbi, and he was willing to kiss up to the right wing and Shas (Shas is my personal nightmare, right wing religious party who is very good at getting every one religious to vote for them, in the last 15 years they've grown from a tiny party who used to say they wanted to deport all the Arabs out of Israel to the 3rd strongest party in Israel. They don't just dislike Arabs either, they're head rabbi is always spouting rubbish one memorable thing was 'those that died in the Holocaust, died because they weren't devout enough.)

You say that if the Israeli people want change then they need to make it, fine but there is no election coming up for a while yet and unless Bibi does something very extreme the Knesset wont call for a vote of No Confidence. Also do you know the percentage of Israeli's that do vote when there’s an election? Over 80% but when rockets are being fired at Israel that tends to make people think of safety so they vote right. Mer’res, a left wing party whose main aim was the peace process who in the 90s was a very strong party, in the last election they were only able to get two seats in the Knesset. Israel is willing to make concessions but we aren't the only ones who need to agree and give up some things.


As I've said Bibi wants to slow the peace process down that’s why he allows such stunts to continue.

Though Tycho from your words i get the impression that you consider the building of settlements a more serious offence then being targeted by rockets....

I'm sure many Israelis feel that way.  But if they really do, they've accepted the status quo, and the current situation continuing on perpetually (or committing attrocities to change it, I suppose), so I'm not particularly worried about their view.  If trying again is worse for them than the current situation, they can have the current situations, I guess.  But as to your question, the reason to keep playing is because its the only way to change the situation.  You can't really say "the rockets must stop!" and "nothing we're ever going to try will ever work, so why bother!" at the same time.  Not rationally, at least.


Okay, and what is your suggestion out of this?  That Israel does nothing, and expects the rest of the world to deal with the problem?  Doesn't seem like a realistic option to me.  I'm looking for solutions, you seem to be giving reasons why Israel shouldn't have to bother with trying to find one.  Our goals seem different, so our preferred methods for obtaining them will be as well.


I largely agree with this.  Seems like a very good reason for Israel to want to solve the situation, so they can stop being beaten over the head.


I can largely agree with that.


They may well have made a mistake not taking that deal.  But I don't see that as a reason to abandon all further attempts at reaching an agreement.  Again, I'm looking for solutions, you seem to be arguing that its not worth the effort.  Different goals, so different views on what should be done.


Again, what is the solution you're suggesting here?


If you're saying we should condemn bad behavior by other countries, I agree.  If you're saying that until we do, we shouldn't bother trying to do anything about Israel, I don't.  If you're saying that Israel has a right to exist, I agree.  If you're saying that means they shouldn't try to reach peace with the palestinians, I disagree.  If you're saying Isreal acts better than a lot of other countries would in their shoes, I can agree to that.  If you're saying they're doing nothing wrong, or that we shouldn't try to change what they do, then I disagree.

Put it this way:  tell me what you think Israel should do.  If it's just "carry on doing what they're doing," or "nothing, it's all on the palestinians," then you've implicitly accepted the status quo.  I don't accept the status quo.  I think things should and need to change, both for Israel's benefit, and for the palestinians'.

Hamas probably won't, no.  But palestine is no more Hamas than Israel is Bibi.  I don't accept the "they didn't take the good deal we offered them, so why bother trying to find another deal they will take?" line.  You live in Israel.  You tell me if you're happy with the status quo.  If you want change, you have to give up the defeatist attitude, and believe that peace is possible.  If you don't, well, stop complaining about it and get on with life, because that's how you'll be living as long as you're there.  As frustrated with the situation as I get frequently, I haven't yet given up all hope that peace is possible.  Maybe I'm unrealistically idealistic about it.  But if so, and no peace is possible, don't complain to me about rockets, and arab nations hating Israel, or whatever else, because you're the one telling me there's no way to fix it.  I'm not pretending that a solution will be easy, or painless.  But I think its worth trying for.  When I hear an Israeli, of all people, telling me peace talks aren't even worth mentioning, I start to despair.  You've got more riding on it than anyone else here, I would wager, but you don't seem particularly interested in change.  You're more eager to give reasons why Israel shouldn't even try to change the situation.  I have to admit, it boggles my mind.  Why is it that the rest of the world seems to care more about solving the Israel-palestine problem than most Israelis or palestinians?


Yeah, that was a depressing day for me.


Yeah, they sound like very bad news.  The thing to realize, is that because they have such a strong position in Israel, that's the face of Israel that much of the world sees.  But also realize that you have more power to change that than almost everyone else in the world.  You not only have a vote, you're there, you can influence other Israelis.  I'm sure you already do, to one degree or another.  But don't let Shas and other extremists make you give on the peace process.  Don't just accept that they're going to determine the future of your country.  They are a barrier to peace, just like Hamas is a barrier to peace in palestine.  And just like palestinians have to take responsibility and not let Hamas derail peace, Israelis need to do the same, and not let Shas derail it either.  Hamas is a huge problem, but you personally have next to no power over what they do.  But you do have some power over what Shas can do.  Palestinians are going to have to deal with Hamas, Israelis will have to deal with Shas.  Only when both sides start looking at what they can actually change themselves, rather than pointing out what the other side needs to change, will there be some real progress.  Let me stress that I don't mean to imply that you're not doing all you can already.  I don't know you, and for all I know you may be very politically active, and busting your butt already to address this problem.  I just want to make it clear that this is the area where you can make a difference, and thus where you'll do the most good directing your effort.  Focussing on the problems with Hamas isn't likely to get you much, since Hamas is pretty much guaranteed to not care what you say.


No, you're not the only ones that need to give somethings up.  I agree entirely.  But you can only control what you give up.  You can't actually control what the Palestinians are willing to give up.  You can influence them, and encourage them to accept peace, but simply saying "they have to!" won't work.  Much of your recent posts seems to be devoted to defending lack of action by Israel.  Why?  Its fine to say Palestinians need to make concessions too, but it's not okay, in my opinion, to say "they haven't yet, so we're not going to either!"  That's a recipe for continuing the status quo.


Okay, but why defend it?  Why not be enraged about it?  It's an obstacle to peace!  If he really wants to slow the peace process down, that's where you need to be directing your anger and efforts and demands for change, not Hamas.  Not because he's worse or better than Hamas, but because you have more influence over him than you have over hamas.  Its not an issue of whos worse, its an issue of what can we each do to bring about the necessary change?  Its an issue of who's in a position to do what parts?


That's troubling, because I certainly don't feel that way.  I'm fairly confident I haven't said that, and I haven't meant to imply it.  If you could point me to what I've said that's given that impression, that'd be useful, so I could clarify things.  I think there's a tendency when hot topics like this come up for everyone (myself included here), to assume that whenever someone disagrees with us about one thing, that they must automatically agree with everything people on "the other side" say.

To be very clear, the rocket attacks are morally undefendable and need to end.

To also be very clear, I think comparing "what is worse" or "what is more serious" is largely counter productive.  Using the evil acts of the other side to justify evil acts of our own, even if they are lesser evils, is counter productive.  What's far more important is asking "what is within our power to change?"

So please don't take my statements about settlements as meaning I'm 100% pro palestinian and 100% anti-Israel.  I'm not.  I'm pro peace, and anti-anything that gets in the way of peace, regardless of which side does it.  So I'm anti-rockets, and anti-settlements.  I don't want one side or the other to "win," I want both sides to stop killing each other, and be able to live normal lives.  I don't care much about who did what decades ago, I care a lot about what people are going to do in the next few decades.

In reply to Tycho (msg #248):

Tycho wants solutions eh?  So do I.

First one has to assume that both parties want a solution and... well, that is exactly where the solution thingy breaks down.  Fatah and Hamas do not want a solution.  They want the Jews dead.  Period.  Arafat said it best, "We love death more than they love life."  Israel can hardly be blamed for throwing up it's hands in disgust when all the past concessions and efforts have been forgotten or re-written.

Recent history has taught us that Israel is not the reason for Middle Eastern unrest and conflict.  The Arab nations would not quit attacking each other or repressing their people if Israel was not around.  The hearts and minds of Arabs and Muslims do not revolve around the existence of Israel and the Palestinians.  These days they seem to be concentrating on overthrowing tyrants than fantasizing about the Jewish Conspiracies their leaders distracted them with.

If the Palestinian issue is one that Israel alone has to solve then I am certain that no one will like the solution no matter how far they bend over.  Israel is just too hated by too many for them to get approval of anything they come up with.  They are losers going into it.

Here is the Tlaloc Solution:

1. Stop all money going into Gaza and the West Bank.  The current flow of cash has done nothing to enrich your average Palestinian.
2. Bring the hammer down on anyone running weapons or firing a rocket.
3. Strip Fatah and Hamas of all political power and seize all of their assets.  Those funds belong to the Palestinian people.
4. Establish borders according to the Clinton agreement.  Those borders are now set in stone but with the agreement that they can possible be negotiated after a period of extended peace.  Israel will immediately remove all settlements from the lands that fall outside their borders.
5. Allow new leadership to step forward.  Any person with terrorist affiliations need not apply.
6. Remove all literature from Palestinian schools that promote terrorism and matyrdom.
7. Invite investement into Gaza and the West Bank.
8. Build schools and infrastructure.

All of this is draconian and unreasonable which is why it would work.  Only when the Arab nations and Palestinians understand that Israel has a right to be there will that madness end.  Currently the only way to do this is to ram it down their throats.

The major problems in the history of this conflict is that the world accepted the means by which Israel was being attacked as well as throwing money at the criminals who promoted it.  Arafat should have never been given a Peace Prize, amongst others, as it validated his movement and methods.

There is your solution.  Have fun with it.

Tycho please understand I am not against the peace process, but in fact very much for it, i still think that when Arafat turned down the peace deal that was proposed by Barak and Clinton was a huge missed opportunity all because Arafat didn't have the same type of selfless courage that Sadat showed when he made peace with Israel. I truly believe if there was true peace between Israel and Palestine that we both would be able to create two strong and symbiotic states, if there was peace, I truly think Israel would help Palestine build up its infrastructure so that it could be self sufficient and be a strong state that other countries and companies would be happy dealing with which would only make it stronger. So instead of being the poor cousin in the arab world it would have the strength and stability very few other arab counties enjoy.

That's what my vision of peace is like. But i also realize that that time is not now, I can't pound my fist on the table and tell the two parties to wake up and see the future as it should be, I can't force them to the table if they don't want to. That doesn't mean i've given up it just means that i'm waiting, and doing what i can in the mean time. Theres an expression though i'm not quite sure how it's worded, something about forcing someone of changing their opinion means they still have they're original opinion. What I think could help the peace process is the following: If America could bring it's influence to bear on Hamas, the Islamic Jihad or whoever is holding Gilad Shalit (captured Israeli soldier) to get them to free him as a gesture to show they want peace instead of using him as a bargaining chip, i think it would change a great deal of opinions here and help the peace process to get moving again.



I am not defending a lack of action by Israel nor am i giving up but i am being realistic and realizing that at this time peace talks aren't going to work because neither side want to work towards peace right now.



I'm not defending it i think it's disgusting but i think people should look past it instead of using it to stop talking about the main issues.



As for why i get that impression from your words, it is the way you talk about the rockets in a very off the cuff manner as if they aren't a serious threat so they should be ignored.


And...


I think the Tlaloc Solution: would be great I completely agree with it, with the possible rider that the majority of Arafats ill gotten gains be returned to the Palestinian people as well as those sitting in in the bank accounts of the current leaders of Fatah and Hamas. Oh and that Arafat's Nobel be stripped from him plus the million bucks that went with it.

The last time there was peace in the middle east was the Roman occupation.
They managed it by crucifying people and ruthless execution of their enemies until none dared oppose them. As long as everyone is arguing about who the victim is there will not be peace.
Because step one to ensuring peace is ensuring the other side wants peace, because the alternative is just not acceptable.

In reply to silveroak (msg #252):

Thanks for repeating my point.  The Palestinians do not want it.  End of story.

Proceed from there.

Not to get into it as i haven't read up on that time period recently but your wrong Israel or Judea wasn't peaceful during roman times, i know of three major revolts againt them by the Jews and that doen't even inclube the smaller ones.

It wasn't peacefull the whole time, but teh wy the Romans put down those revolts quickly disuaded many others from following in their footsteps.
That's one of the most striking things about today verus ancent Rome. Today everyone wants to claim the other person is committing attrocities and hide any possibility of their own. The Romans put their attrocities on display and took the attitude of 'You can't stop this except by complying'

The Roman's weren't always able to quell the uprisings quickly in spite of all their military strength, you should read about the seige of Masada, whose story everyone in Israel knows.

So everyone seen the news about Israel today? About the 'suspicious object' that blew up the bus in Jerusalem, the morters fired at a kibbutz across the border from Gaza and rockets again fired as Be'er Sheva, where the government has told women with children to stay home with them.....it's hard to imagine why it's difficult to talk peace in such a situation.

Sometimes humor has a way of making a point:

http://thepeoplescube.com/curr...oblems-end-t307.html

An excellent site if I do say so!

They may not have put them down quickly, but they did put them down ruthlessly.

Just to point out a little anti-Israel bias in the media, and there is a lot of it, look at this:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/...dUKTRE72M3S520110323

The part you should read is this:



So now a bomb placed on a civilian bus with the intent to kill massive amounts of non-military men, women, and children is a "Palestinian strike".  Funny little Zionists don't know what true terrorism is!  Perhaps the UN needs to condemn Israel's use of harsh language on this issue?  Surely some Palestinian feelings were hurt.

It wasn't placed on the bus, thats why pictures of the bus show it with realatively minimal damage, what they are saying here is that the bag was left at a phone booth near the main bus station in Jerusalem and was detonated when the bus passed it, and it must have ment that the terrorist was still there in the area. Israeli's are very aware of their surroundings, people notice 'suspicious objects' and report them, such objects are taken care of very quickly.

On, next to, it's terrorism either way.

Hamas and Hezbollah, yes, I agree.  Fatah, though, seems to actually want peace to me, and is more interested in the situation palestinians are in than killing jews.  Unfortunately they only have control of the west bank.  Fortunately, they at least have control of that.  I'm all for trying to work towards peace, even if it seems a long shot, because the alternative is accepting the current situation.



Seems very one-sided to me, but I suppose we have to start somewhere, even if it's more or less "Palestinians give up and give Israel everything it wants."  Lets look at the points and iterate.

One thing I think is missed out is:
A.  Both sides need to formally acknowledge the others right to exist as a sovereign and independent nation.

From there we can go on to your list:
1. This violates A.  If Palestine is to be an independent and sovereign nation, it has to be able to trade with other countries, get aid from other countries, etc.  Israel wouldn't be willing to accept complete economic isolation from the rest of the world, so it's not reasonable to expect palestine to accept it either.  Especially considering the state of their infrastructure.
2.  Agreed, but it has to be palestinians bringing the hammer down, and it has to be hitting the people firing rockets.  When the palestinian authority stops someone from firing a rocket, that might get some palestinians mad at the PA, but when Israel ends up killing kids by firing back at a rocket site, that gets palestinians mad at Israel, and that makes the problem worse (and is the whole reason Hamas fires the rockets in the first place).  Stopping the rockets is a critical goal, but it needs to be handled in such a way that it doesn't make people want to fire more rockets (which, in my opinion, is what the current situation tends to do).
3.  Again, this seems to violate A.  Hamas has plenty of bad folks in it.  Fatah has its share of bad guys too.  The ones who have done something illegal should be tried for it.  But a sovereign nation gets to form its own political parties, and elect who it chooses, even if the rest of us don't like who they pick.
4.  I think that's probably fine, though, if I recall, the borders were never agreed to by both sides (they were intentionally left undecided in the Oslo accords, and were part of the hold up at Camp David, I think), so we need to be careful to define just what this means (in particular, East Jerusalem).
5.  I don't think there's any huge barrier to new leadership stepping forward down (though they may gain little traction when doing so).  Again, I think it's important to keep point A in mind--a sovereign nation doesn't have other nations telling it who can or can't be a leader.
6.  A laudable goal, but again we run into point A.  A sovereign nation doesn't have other countries telling it what it can or can't teach in its schools.  I agree that what gets taught in some palestinian schools is horrible, and I agree entirely with the goal of changing it.  But making it a pre-condition of peace seems a bad idea to me.  To me, this will be a change that comes as a consequence of peace, rather than the other way around.  Israel wouldn't give up its right to teach zionism in religious schools, I imagine, so expecting Palestine to give up teaching extreme views seems unreasonable.  That kind of thing has to come from within, rather than be forced from outside.
7.  Agreed, though it seems to violate your first point.  But if we get rid fo the first point, fine here.  Note, though, that for there to be investment in palestine, palestine has to have the freedom to build, which means freedom to import building supplies.  This, along with point A, means ending the blockade, and allowing Palestine to receive goods that other countries send to it.
8.  Sounds good to me, though I wouldn't want to give up the peace process over it.  Great if we can get peace, and investment in infrastructure and schools, bad if we end up with neither because we couldn't get the latter.

Lastly, we need to figure out what to do about the right of return.  It's a major concern for the palestinians (perhaps the major concern), but it's not addressed at all here.  If we accept A, then Israel can't realistically allow all 4 million palestinians who have some claim to homes in israel to return, because they will lose sovereignty over their nation.  But fair compensation can be made.  I don't know what the price of a home in Israel is these days, but I think as a general guideline, current fair market value should be paid for the property that used to belong to palestinians.  This needn't all come form Israel; other countries could contribute to this, in order to help bring peace about.


I think ramming it down their throats is not a good way to do it.  Rarely do people come to accept someone because they've battered them over the head over and over.  Ramming it down their throats only increases the hate, and makes them less likely to accept Israel's right to exist, in my opinion.
This message was last edited by the GM at 18:17, Thu 24 Mar 2011.

Elana, first let me say that I hope the recent uptick in violence hasn't affected you, and that you and your loved ones are safe.  I don't recall if you had said where in Israel you live, but if it's Jerusalem, or Beersheeva (apologies for getting that name wrong, as I'm sure I've done!), but where ever you are, I hope none of the attacks have been too close to you!



Yes, this is what we all want.  Well, no, that's not true.  There are unfortunately too many on each side who don't want this at all.  But those of us who want peace do want this.  The question is, how can we make it happen?


The two parties, no, probably not.  But one of the parties, you do have some influence over.  Not a ton, but as a citizen, you have more say than the vast majority of the people in the world.  Don't underestimate the power you have!  Actions by normal people can go a lot further than most people realize.


The trouble here is that the people holding him probably don't want peace.  They're probably not overly keen on the US, either, so our influence doesn't go as far as would be nice.  It would be great if they would just give him back, but waiting and hoping for that to happen isn't likely to be productive, in my estimation.  Those of us who want peace need to realize that those who don't want peace are going to try to stymie the process, and we need to press on even when they're not cooperating.  We can't let those who don't want peace achieve their goal so easily, by predicating our actions on them doing something for us first.


For some people, it is one of the main issues.  We need to realize that what seems unimportant to us may be crucial for someone else.  And those situations are precisely the ones that should be a no-brainer to implement.  If it's of little value to us, and really important to them, we should do it now, rather than coming up with reasons to not do it.  Because the other stuff is going to be even harder.



Hmm.  Go back and read what I've said.  I never said they should be ignored.  I've said they were a low-level threat.  I stressed that that doesn't make them acceptable or okay or the like.  They are wrong.  But I would wager they kill less Isrealis than car accidents do each year.  We need to respond to them in a way that matches the threat they pose.  The reasons they launch the rockets is to A) cause fear, and B) get a reaction.  When Israel bombs Palestine in response, especially if it ends up killing kids, that only makes the problem worse, because it drives people to Hamas and their ilk.  It's just what Hamas wants Israel to do in reaction.  Its why they do it.


Aragat's been dead how long now?  You're looking the wrong direction.  That's in the past.  Are you really willing to risk the whole peace process on a demand that just shames someone who's not even alive anymore?  We need to have thicker skin, and think about the bigger issues, not get bogged down in spite and unimportant issues like this.  We need to focus on making a better future, not on trying to get back at the wrongs of the past, otherwise we'll never get anywhere.