Illegal Israeli Settlements Rapidly Growing. [Archive]

jmontecillo01

25th October 2006, 02:37 AM

Yes, but the result of a settler building a house is not the same as that of a Palestinian suicide bomber blowing one up.

How about the civilians that perished because of Isralie missiles.

You would find this funny. You would probably know that I suffer from schiz. I suffer from auditory/visual hallucination. The fact is that the voice I "heard" thought me a lot. One of which is how to question things.

I grew up in a rural place in Asia. I did not know anything about the Isralie/Palestinian problem until Israel attacked Betlehem and cornered some civilians in the Church of Nativity.

The voice I heard said "Even if the lot adjuscent to your home is empty, you still have no right to claim it".

Israel was born 1948. The land was given to them by the British and it has fixed boundaries. If the British gave them Tasmania, then that would be their home. They will have no right to build settlements in NSW.

To take the argument that they were there 2000 years ago, then Americans might as well surrender all thier lands to the original occupants which are the Native Americans.

Q-Source

25th October 2006, 02:57 AM

The Palestinian goal--as seen everywhere from the PLO covenant on down--is genocide or, at least, expulsion of the jews. The israeli goal is survival. No comparison.

I think they are just defending their land. Think about it. Someone comes and takes your home. What is it your reaction? Are you going to sit outside in the backyard imploring them to leave?

Skeptic

25th October 2006, 03:15 AM

Israel was born 1948. The land was given to them by the British and it has fixed boundaries.

No, it didn't. Those boundaries--quite generous to the Arabs--were rejected by the Arabs repeatedly.

The idea that israel has no claim to land it won in wars of annihilation against it, apart from not being followed by any other nation in the world, means in practice that the Arabs can continue to fight and have no reason to make peace: if they win, they kill all the jews; if they lose, they lose nothing because any territoriy israel gains is "occupied territory".

I think they are just defending their land. Think about it. Someone comes and takes your home.

Not a single inch of land was taken from the Arabs before 1948. ALL of it was bought, freely, by jews who came to Palestine and who bought it from Arabs willing to sell. They no more "took" somebody's home than the person who bought your house "took" your home.

Before 1948, in fact, the only land in Palestine taken by force was jewish land--the Arabs, rioting in 1929 and other times, massacred the jews from Gaza and Hebron and expelled the rest, despite the jews living there for centuries.

The only land taken later by force was the result of a war of annihilation against the jews started by the Arabs. It goes without saying, of course, that any land conquered in that war from the jews--the old city of Jerusalem, for instance--was instantly cleansed of all jewish occupants by force.

Q-Source

25th October 2006, 03:50 AM

Skeptic,

Are you Jew? Do you believe in God?

fuelair

25th October 2006, 03:56 AM

Yes it was: the Arab goal in that war--and ever since--being the pushing of the jews into the sea of making sure all of the land is purely Arab and (preferably) Muslim (as seen by the treatment of Palestinian Christians by their Muslim "brothers"). To say both sides are fighting for land and therefore both are morally equal is like saying that when someone fights a would-be murderer, both are trying to kill the other and therefore both are morally equal.

The Palestinian goal--as seen everywhere from the PLO covenant on down--is genocide or, at least, expulsion of the jews. The israeli goal is survival. No comparison.

So wish Israel would start salting land just before they give it back - sort of a ritual cleansing thing.:D :D

firecoins

25th October 2006, 04:00 AM

Skeptic,

Are you Jew? Do you believe in God?
are you Muslim?

jmontecillo01

25th October 2006, 04:03 AM

Skeptic,

I have a few Isralie friends and a few Palestinian friends. They all agree that the violence must end. There is no mention of "pushing the jews to the sea".

I used to frequent a site "Christian Scientist". There every time there is a Palestinian or somebody who question the methods of the Isralie govt, the members would be jumping up and down.

www dot washington-report dot org/backissues/0795/9507006.htm

I am posting the link but I am preety sure that like those in the forum I mentioned, you will just say that this is arab propaganda.

In the last war, we have a pretty balanced reporting here in Oz. There are reporters on both side so we know what both sides were doing.

Q-Source

25th October 2006, 04:05 AM

are you Muslim?

No, I am atheist. I believe that these hatred between Muslims and Jews are rooted in their religious beliefs.

Dave1001

25th October 2006, 04:14 AM

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/778767.html

I often hear it is just a matter of keeping the law, if Palestinians just did that, all would be ok, and they are to be condemned for not doing so.

It appear Isreal is no better at keeping the law.

Do we really have to "pick sides" here? I'm interested in people promoting viable plans for the region, not pitting israeli jews against palestinian and other arab muslims.

firecoins

25th October 2006, 04:15 AM

No, I am atheist. I believe that these hatred between Muslims and Jews are rooted in their religious beliefs.
in part, however Jews tend not to hate Muslims for being Muslim, just hate those who opose the existance of Israel. I know. I am from a Jewish backround. I am an atheist now.

webfusion

25th October 2006, 06:54 AM

According to military sources, Israeli Defense Minister Peretz intends to demolish 86 illegal West Bank structures, 47 of which were built by settlers and 29 of which were built by Palestinians. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/779257.html)

This thread OP talks about 'the law' --- and how it is applied/enforced.

Look, this is not really an Arab-Israeli Conflict thread. It is not a Muslim-Jew Conflict thread. It is a legal dispute.

If privately-owned lands are involved, certainly the Israeli courts are capable and reasonable, and the owners can bring suit. The 'deeds' to lands in this area of the world are highly questionable and not easily claimed to be in force today, due to many factors.
http://www.beki.org/landlaw.html

Darth Rotor

25th October 2006, 07:03 AM

in part, however Jews tend not to hate Muslims for being Muslim, just hate those who opose the existance of Israel. I know. I am from a Jewish backround. I am an atheist now.
Does that make you a Jew or not? I am of the understanding that the descriptive is used two ways: one purely religious, one of blood and geneology. How do you apply that to yourself? What convention do you use?

DR

Q-Source

25th October 2006, 07:15 AM

in part, however Jews tend not to hate Muslims for being Muslim, just hate those who opose the existance of Israel. .

Oh, how nice they are. I suppose then that they hate me because I oppose to the existence of Israel.

I know. I am from a Jewish backround. I am an atheist now.

So you are not Jew anymore.

webfusion

25th October 2006, 07:30 AM

BREAKING NEWS:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/779335.html
Brawl between Arabs and Jews at 'Havat Gilad.'

The Gilad Farm outpost was built in 2003 on a land the occupants say is legally owned by lands dealer Moshe Zar, whose son, Gilad, was killed by Palestinians. The outpost comprises of ten constructions and a shed.

Mycroft

25th October 2006, 09:07 AM

How about the civilians that perished because of Isralie missiles.

You would find this funny. You would probably know that I suffer from schiz. I suffer from auditory/visual hallucination. The fact is that the voice I "heard" thought me a lot. One of which is how to question things.

That may be funny in a dark-humor sort of way. You are on medication, I hope?

You also understand that whatever you’re told by an auditory/visual hallucination, you can’t pass it off as evidence of any kind, right?

I grew up in a rural place in Asia. I did not know anything about the Isralie/Palestinian problem until Israel attacked Betlehem and cornered some civilians in the Church of Nativity.

The voice I heard said "Even if the lot adjuscent to your home is empty, you still have no right to claim it".

The real issue, however, is if you have the right to buy it if the owner is willing to sell it to you.

Israel was born 1948. The land was given to them by the British and it has fixed boundaries. If the British gave them Tasmania, then that would be their home. They will have no right to build settlements in NSW.

Your history is lacking.

To take the argument that they were there 2000 years ago, then Americans might as well surrender all thier lands to the original occupants which are the Native Americans.

Do you also understand this argument cuts both ways?

Meadmaker

25th October 2006, 09:09 AM

Does that make you a Jew or not? I am of the understanding that the descriptive is used two ways: one purely religious, one of blood and geneology. How do you apply that to yourself? What convention do you use?

DR

It's even more confusing. I'm an atheist, born and raised Christian, who married a Jewish woman and is now a member of a Jewish temple, and who lights Shabbat candles every Friday night and occasionally goes to Torah study. Am I Jewish? I don't even know. Usually, these days, I say yes, unless the context is very specifically about belief in God.

But, I'm confident that anti-Jewish Arabs would figure I'm the enemy, so I guess that makes me Jewish.

Mycroft

25th October 2006, 09:09 AM

Death is death, suffering is suffering. It does not matter what method you use, the result is the same. When it comes to human suffering, no man can claim to be in a moral high horse if the result of their action is the same.

Really?

So if a man attacks you swinging a baseball bat and in self-defense you accidentally knock him down a flight of stairs where he hits his head and dies, that is morally the same as if you had purposefully murdered him?

Solitaire

25th October 2006, 09:16 AM

The idea that israel has no claim to land it won in wars of annihilation against it, apart from not being followed by any other nation in the world, means in practice that the Arabs can continue to fight and have no reason to make peace: if they win, they kill all the jews; if they lose, they lose nothing because any territoriy israel gains is "occupied territory".

Actually it doesn't matter. For religious reasons the Arabs cannot stop fighting for the land regardless of who leads them. In the long run military superiority decides the boundaries.

Not a single inch of land was taken from the Arabs before 1948. ALL of it was bought, freely, by jews who came to Palestine and who bought it from Arabs willing to sell. They no more "took" somebody's home than the person who bought your house "took" your home.

Are you saying that the Israeli are the true libertarians? Wow.
If true then the Arabs should buy the Israeli out with a smidgen of their oil cash.

Darth Rotor

25th October 2006, 09:45 AM

It's even more confusing. I'm an atheist, born and raised Christian, who married a Jewish woman and is now a member of a Jewish temple, and who lights Shabbat candles every Friday night and occasionally goes to Torah study. Am I Jewish? I don't even know. Usually, these days, I say yes, unless the context is very specifically about belief in God.

But, I'm confident that anti-Jewish Arabs would figure I'm the enemy, so I guess that makes me Jewish.
So the old metric of "you Mom was a Jew, so you are a Jew" still doesn't fit? I am glad I am not in the confusing situation you are in. :) I expect you have gotten more than a few laughs out of the deal. :)

DR

Mycroft

25th October 2006, 09:47 AM

Actually it doesn't matter. For religious reasons the Arabs cannot stop fighting for the land regardless of who leads them. In the long run military superiority decides the boundaries.

Let's hope that's not true. Historically, when a religious belief causes great suffering among those that believe it, they find ways to modify their belief.

Are you saying that the Israeli are the true libertarians? Wow.
If true then the Arabs should buy the Israeli out with a smidgen of their oil cash.

That’s not what he said, and Palestinians don’t get to share in that oil wealth.

Skeptic

25th October 2006, 12:01 PM

Skeptic,

Are you Jew?

Yes.

Do you believe in God?

No.

Skeptic

25th October 2006, 12:08 PM

'm an atheist, born and raised Christian, who married a Jewish woman and is now a member of a Jewish temple, and who lights Shabbat candles every Friday night and occasionally goes to Torah study. Am I Jewish? I don't even know.

According to jewish religious law (the Halacha), you are not a jew, since you were (a) not born jewish (i.e., to a jewish mother) and (b) not officially converted to judaism.

However, as you surely noticed from experience , this is a formal definition that does not stop anybody from joining the service or Temple or studying the Torah with others. And nobody has any problems with you "impersonating" a "real" jew...

There is a saying in the Talmud: "Goy ve'oseh et ha'torah ca'mohu ke'kohen gadol": "A gentile who obeys the laws of the Torah is equal [in piety] to the great priest"--that is, the priest in the temple of Jerusalem.

Skeptic

25th October 2006, 12:17 PM

I have a few Isralie friends and a few Palestinian friends. They all agree that the violence must end. There is no mention of "pushing the jews to the sea".

But that's not the point--as I said repeatedly on this forum, the issue is not that every single Palestinian wants to destroy israel. That, for the record, is not true. The point is that the Palestinians are ruled by those who do, that Palestinian children are educated for that, do everything in their power to do so, and so on.

Consider, as an analogy, Nazi Germany. Not every German--not even every member of the Nazi party--wanted to kill all the jews. But it's still true that the Nazis did and that the Germans did. For this is what the political party and the nation set out to do.

Similarly, say, Communism. Did every Russian want to liquidate the party's enemies? Did every member of the Communist party? Of course not. And yet, it's quite accurate to say that the USSR had, as one of its goals, killing its political enemies.

steverino

25th October 2006, 12:57 PM

Oh, how nice they are. I suppose then that they hate me because I oppose to the existence of Israel.

Whether I hate you or not all depends on your wishes. You say you oppose Israel's "existence."

If your hope is that Israel becomes non-existent by nuclear attack, killing millions of Jews (and Palestinians there) as proposed by the Iranian leadership, then yes, I hate you. If you have some other vision of Jews and Arabs peacefully sharing what is currently Israel then I might not agree with your nuance, but I wouldn't hate you.

So, what IS your vision of rendering Israel "non-existent?"

steverino

25th October 2006, 02:01 PM

Does that make you a Jew or not? I am of the understanding that the descriptive is used two ways: one purely religious, one of blood and geneology. How do you apply that to yourself? What convention do you use? DR

http://cghs.dadeschools.net/holocaust/enabling.htm

"A Jew was anyone with at least three full Jewish grandparents. Also legally to be regarded as a Jew was someone who had two full Jewish grandparents and who belonged to the Jewish religious community when the law was promulgated September 15, 1935, or who joined later, or who was married to a Jew then or later, or (looking to the future) who was the offspring of a marriage contracted with a Jew after September 15, 1935, or who was born out of wedlock after July 31, 1936, the offspring of extramarital relations with a Jew. Anyone who was one-eighth or one-sixteenth Jewish-with one Jewish great-grandparent or great-great-grandparent-would be considered as of German blood."

Skeptic

25th October 2006, 02:05 PM

I suppose then that they hate me because I oppose to the existence of Israel.

And I was kicked out of the NAACP meeting just because I told them I oppose the existence of black people. What's worse, I was actually in jail just because I opposed the existence of Mr. Smith, whom I disliked, so I shot him dead.

Darth Rotor

25th October 2006, 02:07 PM

Darat

25th October 2006, 02:10 PM

And I was kicked out of the NAACP meeting just because I told them I oppose the existence of black people. What's worse, I was actually in jail just because I opposed the existence of Mr. Smith, whom I disliked, so I shot him dead.

Your anaolgy just doesn't work.

Hong Kong was British now it is Chinese, Scottish, Irish & Welsh people campaign to get rid of the UK and so on. Being against a nation as it is currently defined is not necessarily advocating genocide or anything like that.

steverino

25th October 2006, 02:40 PM

Being against a nation as it is currently defined is not necessarily advocating genocide or anything like that.

Very cute, Darat. Tell it to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Darth Rotor

25th October 2006, 02:44 PM

Very cute, Darat. Tell it to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
*dons silly hat*

I am against Canada, but I don't want all them Canadians dead. I want Canada to become the 51st-62th states. The fact that I own a flag making business has nothing to do with this visionary position. Wait a minute, if Canada's on top, are we dealing with the visionary position?

*scratches head*

I'll get back to you later with more details. :boggled:

DR

Meadmaker

25th October 2006, 02:44 PM

I generally support Israel. I think they are better than any of their neighbors. However, the settlement issue is one where I have a real problem.

The problem I see is not that Jews are moving into west bank areas. The problem I have is that Jews are erecting "Jews only" housing. I don't think that's a good idea. If they want to build apartment blocks in Bethlehem, and rent them to anyone, including Jews, who wants them, I think that's fine. If they want to do the same thing except have a "No Arabs Allowed" policy, I'm not so keen on that.

steverino

25th October 2006, 03:02 PM

*dons silly hat*

I am against Canada, but I don't want all them Canadians dead. I want Canada to become the 51st-62th states. The fact that I own a flag making business has nothing to do with this visionary position. Wait a minute, if Canada's on top, are we dealing with the visionary position?

*scratches head*

I'll get back to you later with more details. :boggled:

DR

Darth- You are SUCH a Jew!
;)

luchog

25th October 2006, 03:44 PM

Does that make you a Jew or not? I am of the understanding that the descriptive is used two ways: one purely religious, one of blood and geneology. How do you apply that to yourself? What convention do you use?

According to mainstream Jewish tradition, one's status as a Jew is based strictly on heritage (with some allowance made for sincere conversion to Judaism). There is a saying that one can never stop being a Jew, one can only be a bad Jew.

luchog

25th October 2006, 03:47 PM

It's even more confusing. I'm an atheist, born and raised Christian, who married a Jewish woman and is now a member of a Jewish temple, and who lights Shabbat candles every Friday night and occasionally goes to Torah study. Am I Jewish? I don't even know. Usually, these days, I say yes, unless the context is very specifically about belief in God.

According to Orthodox law (and most other sects have similar laws), you would not be considered a Jew unless you make a sincere conversion. However, as the spouse of a Jew, you do qualify for the Right of Return.

steverino

25th October 2006, 04:02 PM

According to Orthodox law (and most other sects have similar laws), you would not be considered a Jew unless you make a sincere conversion. However, as the spouse of a Jew, you do qualify for the Right of Return.

Right. You need to actually convert. Of course, once you do, you don't have to light candles or anything.;)

†= Crap!

25th October 2006, 05:11 PM

Just wanted to plug a documentary.

It can be watched here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696

It's obviously a pro-Palestinian piece, so if you're the type that only wants to wrap their mind in safe comfortable views that bolster their preconceived biases, then by all means ignore it, but I do think it makes a pretty good case that the overwhelming majority of American mainstream media coverage of this conflict is pretty shamefully just propaganda right from the mouths of the Israeli government.

edit: why is my post in italics?

firecoins

25th October 2006, 06:18 PM

Does that make you a Jew or not? I am of the understanding that the descriptive is used two ways: one purely religious, one of blood and geneology. How do you apply that to yourself? What convention do you use?

DR
most Israelis are not orthodox Jews, neither am I. Most are no different than non religious Christans in this respect. VIolence against Muslims by the Israeli military are political as oppossed to being "Jewish"

a_unique_person

25th October 2006, 06:45 PM

Very cute, Darat. Tell it to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

That is Ahmadinajed's point of view. I think it is wrong.

Darth Rotor

25th October 2006, 07:57 PM

most Israelis are not orthodox Jews, neither am I. Most are no different than non religious Christans in this respect. VIolence against Muslims by the Israeli military are political as oppossed to being "Jewish"
Israeli versus Jewish I get, and always have.

DR

steverino

25th October 2006, 09:02 PM

That is Ahmadinajed's point of view. I think it is wrong.

You are really sticking your neck out on this one, thinking Ahmadinajed is "wrong" to kill 6 million people. You are really turning a corner on that one.

jmontecillo01

25th October 2006, 09:47 PM

So if a man attacks you swinging a baseball bat and in self-defense you accidentally knock him down a flight of stairs where he hits his head and dies, that is morally the same as if you had purposefully murdered him?

Nope, What I am saying is that both sides suffer casualties. We need to see both sides and try to avoid our bias from making us blind to that fact. All men has the right to defend their home but nobody has the right to get a gun and enter their's neighbor's home.

That may be funny in a dark-humor sort of way. You are on medication, I hope?

You also understand that whatever you’re told by an auditory/visual hallucination, you can’t pass it off as evidence of any kind, right?

Yes, I am on medication. What I am trying to say is that I learned to look for the truth based on reason.

I know that this is not a thread for the paranormal nor conspiracy theory but I will give you a couple of samples.

When the attack on 9/11 happened, I was watching the television. What I heard is that "Any military man would tell you that it is stupid to execute a mission without any military value".

In short, when doing an investigation, you must look at the forensic evidence and the motive. I do not have an answer but I am preety sure that the perpetuators would know that they would be just be hunted like dogs by the mightiest military in the world.

The first statement that I heard way back 1988 said "This is the most important period in man's history, this is the time he is learning about information. Information that will shape the mind and character of his children". We now have this tool that is not hamperred by the boundaries of nations. We can influence our children to use reason in their lives.

The best one is "If there is a God, then the miracle is the power of reasoning that he gave us. Because of this miracle, we can create drugs, go to the moon, etc. But since we cannot see his fingerprint, it would be safe to assume that he expect us to use that power of reasoning. That is why after 16 years of search, I am now an agnostic.

There are a lot of other things that happened to me but instead, just lead me to agnotism.

With regards to "illegal settlement", the international community uses those words because that is what they are, "illegal". Why would Sharon say that he would dismantle some of the settlements, it is because this is where the main problem is.

Why is it called "occupied territories". Because that is what they are, occupied".

-----
Fix reason in her seat. Call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existance of God for if he exists, he must more approve of homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. _Thomas Jefferson

Skeptic

25th October 2006, 09:48 PM

So, how was jail, if you don't mind my asking? How did you get out?

DR

Oh, I opposed its existence, so it disappeared.

a_unique_person

25th October 2006, 09:48 PM

You are really sticking your neck out on this one, thinking Ahmadinajed is "wrong" to kill 6 million people. You are really turning a corner on that one.

Eff off.

Skeptic

25th October 2006, 09:50 PM

Your anaolgy just doesn't work.

Hong Kong was British now it is Chinese, Scottish, Irish & Welsh people campaign to get rid of the UK and so on. Being against a nation as it is currently defined is not necessarily advocating genocide or anything like that.

Necessarily, no.

But, when you read the Palestinian covenant (etc., etc., etc.) it is quite clear that the Palestinian (and Arab) attempt to "oppose the existence" of israel is one of genocide or at the very least total expulsion of the jews.

Skeptic

25th October 2006, 09:52 PM

It's obviously a pro-Palestinian piece, so if you're the type that only wants to wrap their mind in safe comfortable views that bolster their preconceived biases, then by all means ignore it,

"I know it's totally biased, but I'll call you names if you won't accept what it says as gospel truth".

Skeptic

25th October 2006, 10:06 PM

The problem I see is not that Jews are moving into west bank areas. The problem I have is that Jews are erecting "Jews only" housing. I don't think that's a good idea. If they want to build apartment blocks in Bethlehem, and rent them to anyone, including Jews, who wants them, I think that's fine. If they want to do the same thing except have a "No Arabs Allowed" policy, I'm not so keen on that.

Many jews support your view. In fact, at least in the larger settlements, there are some Arabs, though a small number, who at the very least have their day jobs there.

Mycroft

25th October 2006, 11:50 PM

Skeptic

26th October 2006, 02:07 AM

And here is a critique of that "documentary." It's kinda long, but reading through it will give you an idea of the falsehoods and omissions that typify pro-Palestinian propaganda.

http://www.jcrc.org/israel/p3l/P3L-Review.pdf

But, but, but... "Christianity = Crap!" said your two options are to either ignore it and be branded a brainswashed conservartive, or agree with it and be an enlightened liberal. What the hell are you doing, criticizing it? Are you part of the zionist conspiracy, or something?

Darth Rotor

26th October 2006, 06:08 AM

Oh, I opposed its existence, so it disappeared.
Man, I'd like to learn how to do that with my tax bill.

Any pointers? ;)

DR

webfusion

26th October 2006, 06:33 AM

And here is a critique of that "documentary." It's kinda long, but reading through it will give you an idea of the falsehoods and omissions that typify pro-Palestinian propaganda.

"Kinda long" ??? It's 23 pages long. No way am I gonna read all that! Too complicated. Can you please condense it to three sentences? Thanks.

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Darth Rotor --
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1675
There are many creative ways to avoid taxes. Not all are legal, however.

Darth Rotor

26th October 2006, 06:49 AM

It's 23 pages long. No way am I gonna read all that! Too complicated. Can you please condense it to three sentences? Thanks.

It's a quick read, and a well organized discussion of how a piece of propaganda is crafted. I'd like to see a similar paper done on Michael Moore's work.

DR

webfusion

26th October 2006, 06:55 AM

DR --"It's a quick read"

OK, then summarize it -- I don't have the time to engage in a quick read of 23 pages.
Is Israel occupying palestinian land or not? Are the illegal settlements growing or not?

Q-Source

26th October 2006, 07:32 AM

Whether I hate you or not all depends on your wishes. You say you oppose Israel's "existence."

If your hope is that Israel becomes non-existent by nuclear attack, killing millions of Jews (and Palestinians there) as proposed by the Iranian leadership, then yes, I hate you. If you have some other vision of Jews and Arabs peacefully sharing what is currently Israel then I might not agree with your nuance, but I wouldn't hate you.

So, what IS your vision of rendering Israel "non-existent?"

I think that the way the nation of Israel was created was wrong. Wrong reasons and wrong place. I don't share the motiviations that make Jews believe that they have a divine right to posses that land.

Darth Rotor

26th October 2006, 08:16 AM

I think that the way the nation of Israel was created was wrong. Wrong reasons and wrong place. I don't share the motiviations that make Jews believe that they have a divine right to posses that land.
Wonderful.

Borders are most typically drawn with blood and iron, or the threat of it. So it is with Israel's borders. Since 1948, Israel's blood and iron have held sway.

By what right does Mexico possess its land? Paraguay? Cuba?

DR

Mycroft

26th October 2006, 09:50 AM

Man, I'd like to learn how to do that with my tax bill.

Any pointers? ;)

DR

I can show you some websites.

You can also nulify your mortgage too. Boy the banks hate that! ;)

Mycroft

26th October 2006, 10:01 AM

I think that the way the nation of Israel was created was wrong. Wrong reasons and wrong place. I don't share the motiviations that make Jews believe that they have a divine right to posses that land.

Again you're speaking from historical inaccuracy. Zionism was a secular movement, not a religious one. In part it was motivated by anti-Semitism and a need for Jewish people to have a place where their safety would not depend on the mercy of non-Jews, and in part the movement was motivated by creating a place where Jewish culture could flourish.

Mycroft

26th October 2006, 10:25 AM

But, but, but... "Christianity = Crap!" said your two options are to either ignore it and be branded a brainswashed conservartive, or agree with it and be an enlightened liberal. What the hell are you doing, criticizing it? Are you part of the zionist conspiracy, or something?

It's precisely because of propaganda pieces like this that I've come to my own very pro-Israel point of view. There was a time when I knew very little of the topic and as I became more educated, I kept noticing more lies, half-truths, omissions and distortions coming overwhelmingly from only one side of the conflict.

There are certainly pro-Israeli sources that are willing to stretch the truth some, but they are the exception rather than the rule. On the pro-Palestinian side the willingness to lie is virtually universal.

Darth Rotor

26th October 2006, 10:29 AM

There are certainly pro-Israeli sources that are willing to stretch the truth some
You might have stopped right there.
but they are the exception rather than the rule. On the pro-Palestinian side the willingness to lie is virtually universal.
You just shot your objectivity in the foot, with a blunderbus. :(
Someone will now ask for evidence to back up your generalization.

DR

Mycroft

26th October 2006, 10:40 AM

You might have stopped right there.

You just shot your in the foot, with a blunderbus. :(
Someone will now ask for evidence to back up your generalization.

DR

That's fine. If someone wants to challenge my statement, I'll ask them to find a pro-Palestinian source that doesn't depend on half-truths, omissions and deception. Then if they think they find one, I’ll just go through and point out some half-truths, omissions, and deceptions.

I’ve been doing this for a while now.

Skeptic

26th October 2006, 12:02 PM

That's fine. If someone wants to challenge my statement, I'll ask them to find a pro-Palestinian source that doesn't depend on half-truths, omissions and deception. Then if they think they find one, I’ll just go through and point out some half-truths, omissions, and deceptions.

I’ve been doing this for a while now.

The reply from those who brought up the "objective" Palestinian web site exposed as being the usual collection of lies being usually:

(a) "There are two sides to every story" (oh really? So, how about teaching creationism in biology class?)

(b) "The jews distort too!" (which, even if true, is merely the tu quoque fallacy--not to mention the fact that while perhaps no absolutely objective site exists, it is the degree of distortion that is the point)

(c) "zionist! racist! Islamophobe!" (etc.)

Darth Rotor

26th October 2006, 12:32 PM

Oh, I opposed its existence, so it disappeared.
Please delete this post, I got jumped to the developmental forum, and had a heck of a time getting out.

Now free of the red and brown world.

DR

Mycroft

26th October 2006, 12:36 PM

The reply from those who brought up the "objective" Palestinian web site exposed as being the usual collection of lies being usually:

(a) "There are two sides to every story" (oh really? So, how about teaching creationism in biology class?)

(b) "The jews distort too!" (which, even if true, is merely the tu quoque fallacy--not to mention the fact that while perhaps no absolutely objective site exists, it is the degree of distortion that is the point)

(c) "zionist! racist! Islamophobe!" (etc.)

My prediction:

Q-source will not reply. He's not a "true believer", he's just some person who has been exposed to the Palestinian side of the argument and feels vaguely offended that someone who has looked deeper into the issues has formed a strong opinion the other way. He's one of those that think "reasonable" is always "middle ground between the two sides" and doesn't easily comprehend that while there may well be (at least) two sides to every issue, the different sides are not always equally true.

The other usual suspects who are true believers will not reply. By this time they are fully aware that you, I, Z-N, Webfusion or others are fully capable of exposing the half-truths, omissions and deceptions of any given source they might bring to the table.

Darth Rotor

26th October 2006, 02:15 PM

My prediction:

Q-source will not reply. He's not a "true believer", he's just some person who has been exposed to the Palestinian side of the argument and feels vaguely offended that someone who has looked deeper into the issues has formed a strong opinion the other way. He's one of those that think "reasonable" is always "middle ground between the two sides" and doesn't easily comprehend that while there may well be (at least) two sides to every issue, the different sides are not always equally true.

The other usual suspects who are true believers will not reply. By this time they are fully aware that you, I, Z-N, Webfusion or others are fully capable of exposing the half-truths, omissions and deceptions of any given source they might bring to the table.
Z-N took his marbles and went home.

DR

webfusion

26th October 2006, 02:53 PM

All of Zenith-Nadir's posts are still available for viewing in various threads, and in general, he has offered rebuttals and solid information over and over, so it shouldn't be hard to search the Forums and link to his archived posts when needed. Many of Z-N's replies go over the same ground time and again ---- there is never a shortage of myths and falsehoods offered here and in other forums, and I know for sure that the reason he left in a huff was because he is exhausted from making ongoing references to palestinian duplicity and palestinian intransigence and palestinian violence, all the while being replied-to thusly:

"It's Israel's fault"
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2028893&postcount=3

The facts speak for themselves:
It is the palestinian's fault, for lacking leadership willing to negotiate in good faith.

This thread is about Israeli settlements.
Those settlements are on disputed lands (legal status disputed).
The palestinians maintain that all of Israel is 'in dispute' and claim all of palestine as theirs, so it makes not one whit of difference if the Israelis build in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem or Alfe Menashe or Havat Maon. Not one centimeter of Israel is an acceptable place for jews, according to the palestinians' leaders.

That is the crux of the issue.
That is what Z-N has shown over and over.
He has shown it well enough, and if he wishes to remain absent from these discussions at this point onwards, his words and posts still stand.

Mike B.

26th October 2006, 03:32 PM

So you are not Jew anymore.

WTF?

a_unique_person

26th October 2006, 07:56 PM

"Kinda long" ??? It's 23 pages long. No way am I gonna read all that! Too complicated. Can you please condense it to three sentences? Thanks.

It is wrong from it's initial claim on the meaning of the UN resolution. The resolution clearly states that land claimed by war cannot be held, it makes no qualifications.

a_unique_person

26th October 2006, 07:58 PM

a_unique_person

26th October 2006, 08:18 PM

"It's Israel's fault"
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2028893&postcount=3

The facts speak for themselves:
It is the palestinian's fault,

See, that is the basic problem I have. Whatever the reasons for getting to this point, I believe it is in everyones best interests to have stable, viable and safe states for the Palestinians and Israelis. I don't believe all the current trouble is the fault of Israel, but it is also certainly not the case that it is all the Palestinians fault, either.

steverino

26th October 2006, 09:43 PM

I won't debate you anymore Mycroft, your sense of self importance and rightousness, combined with the willingness to harrass, stalk and slander forum members, makes any debate a complete waste of time.

Eff off.

AUP: That's 2 Jews down, and several more to go. You protest too much. Why not lay off America and Israel for a while and criticize Australia, like that crazy imam in Sydney who equates women with meat.

steverino

26th October 2006, 09:45 PM

Strike that. Mycroft likes Israel but may not be a Hebe like me;)

webfusion

26th October 2006, 09:58 PM

but it is also certainly not the case that it is all the Palestinians fault, either.

All? Where did you see the word "all" appear in my post?

You completely misquoted me, and deviated from the intent of my statement with a huge strawman of your own creation.

The palestinans have only themselves to blame for backing leadership which has completely failed to negotiate terms that would be favorable to them. Idiots.

webfusion

26th October 2006, 10:03 PM

The resolution clearly states that land claimed by war cannot be held, it makes no qualifications.

Screw that. If you wage war against me, and I win --- I keep whatever territory my armies were victorious over. That is the way of the world. Otherwise, there is no negative for you to wage war over and over, each time regaining the high ground through a "UN resolution" forcing me to withdraw, until the time comes when you win.

Nope, I think that's absurd.
You lose, I get to declare my terms, not the other way around.

a_unique_person

26th October 2006, 10:17 PM

OK, that's you're opinion, but the 'debunking' claimed the resolution stated something it did not.

a_unique_person

26th October 2006, 10:19 PM

AUP: That's 2 Jews down, and several more to go. You protest too much. Why not lay off America and Israel for a while and criticize Australia, like that crazy imam in Sydney who equates women with meat.

How about you just play it straight, and don't delve into abusive taunts? You're Jewishness or otherwise is of no concern to me. As you have found out, Mycroft is not Jewish, he is just someone who likes to throw disgusting accusations around, and make up motivations for people. It's not the race, it's the person.

jmontecillo01

26th October 2006, 10:37 PM

Mycroft is not Jewish, he is just someone who likes to throw disgusting accusations around, and make up motivations for people. It's not the race, it's the person.

I don't normally judge people but I would make this one an exception. What he did is to question my sanity instead of questioning the insanity of war. I suffered a lot because of my illness. The stigma associated with it made life difficult for me.

Instead of looking for the value of the statement, he looks at the man and says he is insane. What is wrong with the statement "Even if the lot adjuscent to my home is empty, I still have no right to claim it".

Mycroft

26th October 2006, 11:38 PM

I don't normally judge people but I would make this one an exception. What he did is to question my sanity instead of questioning the insanity of war. I suffered a lot because of my illness. The stigma associated with it made life difficult for me.

I don't recall questioning your sanity. You brought the issue up when you described your schizophrenia and the hallucinations that come with it. I asked if you were on your medication because that seemed like the most important issue involving you at the moment.

As for the insanity of war, we can agree all day long on that and it wouldn’t change that peace requires both sides to agree to it. Right now Palestinians can’t even agree if they even recognize Israel or not, something that was supposed to have been settled more than a decade ago.

Instead of looking for the value of the statement, he looks at the man and says he is insane. What is wrong with the statement "Even if the lot adjuscent to my home is empty, I still have no right to claim it".

There is nothing wrong with the statement in itself, but neither does it offer any particular insight into the conflict. Then again, one wouldn't expect an auditory hallucination to offer any special insight to anything. As it happens, a member of my family recently had experience with similar hallucinations, but the nature of the hallucination made it clear they were a result of her fears and insecurities, and not any special insight into the world.

Claiming Jews are squatters on land that doesn’t belong to them is a false meme that Palestinians have been pushing in their propaganda to great success. That you happened to have internalized it and then later experienced it as a hallucination is not itself evidence that the meme has substance. If you want to argue otherwise, you would do much better finding real world evidence.

jmontecillo01

26th October 2006, 11:56 PM

There is nothing wrong with the statement in itself, but neither does it offer any particular insight into the conflict.

It does not require insight to see that nobody has the right to claim lands that are not their own.

Ok The voice - "If the pattern of reality is the same, it would arrive at the same conclusion"

In short, you can use a little sample to be able to see the bigger picture. That is like saying, nobody has the right to enter their neighbours home and shoot him. In the bigger picture, it would also apply to govt entering other peoples land just because they can.

I am not taking sides. All I am saying is that we should not be blind to the reality of things. War causes death, pain and suffering. Both sides suffer. Sharon before he went into coma said he would dismantle some of the settlements. The international community calls them illegal settlement.

steverino

27th October 2006, 12:05 AM

I don't normally judge people but I would make this one an exception. What he did is to question my sanity.

You shared with us your battle with schizophrenia. It is valid then that we as readers look at your posts with a judgement about you as a person influenced by your unfortunate illness. If it was important enough for you to share your hallucinations with us in the context of your post, then please allow us to weave your unique circumstance into our conclusions about your political vision and accept your stigma.

"You're Jewishness...is of no concern to me."- A Unique Aussie

I assumed nothing about me was of any concern to you.

jmontecillo01

27th October 2006, 12:28 AM

You shared with us your battle with schizophrenia. It is valid then that we as readers look at your posts with a judgement about you as a person influenced by your unfortunate illness. If it was important enough for you to share your hallucinations with us in the context of your post, then please allow us to weave your unique circumstance into our conclusions about your political vision and accept your stigma.

Point taken.

The truth is that I don't have an explanation for the things that I experience. I am an agnostic and I do not know the reason for all of those things. I mentioned schiz because I beleive that we must learn to look beyond the persons appearance and examine the value of what he says. In the same token, we must not be mislead by the appearance of the speaker.

All that I know is that we must learn to use this tool that we currently have. A tool that knows no boundaries and influence our children to use reason.

If there is any reason for the voices, then these forums can be used for that purpose.

I really learned a lot. When I was still contracting, I stopped calling myself a programmer and instead use the term "software engineer". Same work, more money.

There are things we have to watch out for. We have to learn to see beyond the words invented by men. What is collateral damage. It means the dead, the injured, the maimed. In short they are victims of war. So why don't we just use victims of war, because the term "collateral damage" hides the fact that the victims are human.

Mycroft

27th October 2006, 01:27 AM

If anyone dares to debate you on the issue in depth, it can only be because they are anti-semites who hate Jews.

It seems no matter how many times I correct you on this, you keep pushing this lie.

Let's make this clear:

Many people disagree with me on Israel. The vast majority of them are not anti-Semites.

To be called an anti-Semite by me you have to go way above and beyond merely disagreeing and debating with me on Israel. Such things may include but not be limited to:

1) Showing extreme prejudice towards Israel, exaggerating all its wrongs and minimizing wrongs done to it.

2) Expressing grave concern over Jews exercising political power to influence the platform of Australian political parties.

3) Expressing grave concern over “extremists Zionist” Jewish “neo-cons” having too much influence in the United States government.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=394648#post394648

4) Showing extreme insensitivity towards Jewish people. You know, the infamous “Yarmulke” thread.

5) Revising history so one doesn’t have to change their opinion. Such as claiming that Arafat was really trying to end terrorism when the evidence is clear he was promoting more of it, or claiming there was no cease-fire so they wouldn’t have to admit Palestinians were breaking it, or calling 400 years of Ottoman rule “occupation” to de-legitimize Zionist talks with them.

6) Apologizing for Nazis (yes, actual Nazis) such as Haj Amin el-Husseini by claiming their genocidal hatred was motivated (and justified) by precognition.

Lot’s of people disagree with me on Israel. To be called an anti-Semite, one needs to do something special.

a_unique_person

27th October 2006, 01:56 AM

a_unique_person

27th October 2006, 01:59 AM

It seems no matter how many times I correct you on this, you keep pushing this lie.

Let's make this clear:

Many people disagree with me on Israel. The vast majority of them are not anti-Semites.

To be called an anti-Semite by me you have to go way above and beyond merely disagreeing and debating with me on Israel. Such things may include but not be limited to:

1) Showing extreme prejudice towards Israel, exaggerating all its wrongs and minimizing wrongs done to it.

2) Expressing grave concern over Jews exercising political power to influence the platform of Australian political parties.

3) Expressing grave concern over “extremists Zionist” Jewish “neo-cons” having too much influence in the United States government.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=394648#post394648

4) Showing extreme insensitivity towards Jewish people. You know, the infamous “Yarmulke” thread.

5) Revising history so one doesn’t have to change their opinion. Such as claiming that Arafat was really trying to end terrorism when the evidence is clear he was promoting more of it, or claiming there was no cease-fire so they wouldn’t have to admit Palestinians were breaking it, or calling 400 years of Ottoman rule “occupation” to de-legitimize Zionist talks with them.

6) Apologizing for Nazis (yes, actual Nazis) such as Haj Amin el-Husseini by claiming their genocidal hatred was motivated (and justified) by precognition.

Lot’s of people disagree with me on Israel. To be called an anti-Semite, one needs to do something special.

You are a loathsome person, twisting around what I say to suit your own perverted needs. I have Jewish friends, as do my children. These people I know are nothing like you.

webfusion

27th October 2006, 06:29 AM

a_u_p, I've just read the thread cited, and it certainly illuminates you in a very bad light. You made a bold claim which sounded very anti-semetic and failed to provide any evidence of it. Despite being prompted repeatedly.

And now this:

"I have Jewish friends, as do my children. These people I know are nothing like you."
---- Mycroft is not jewish.

And then this:
"but the 'debunking' claimed the resolution stated something it did not."

I've requested a summary, or for someone to offer the essence. Can you show me the sentence or paragraph where UNSCR 242 is wrongly evaluated?

As far as I know, UNSCR has been followed to the letter by Israel, in coordination with the States in the region it references. Syria doesn't wish to negotiate, so it is left in the cold. That's a Syrian internal problem, not Israel's.

Skeptic

27th October 2006, 08:35 AM

You are a loathsome person, twisting around what I say to suit your own perverted needs.

Funny how you claim that happens to you a LOT more than to anybody else.

What's more likely, AUP: you are free of the tiniest speck of antisemitic feeling, and it just happens that there a bunch of dirty jews zionist apologists who are out there in this forum to besmirch your good name;

...or that your posts reek of antisemitism: belittling and excusing the murder of jews, spreading Palestinian propaganda against them, falling for conspiracy theories about the "zionist" control of the US government--which is simply the "jews control the world" meme slightly changed, etc.?

I have Jewish friends, as do my children.

You're saying that as if that's any evidence you're not an anti-semite. In reality, of course, the bigot's first line of defense is usually "Some of my best friends are... (whatever group one loaths)".

By this logic, nobody who has female friends could possibly be a male chauvinist pig, nobody who is on friendly terms with some black people could possibly be a racist, and so on. And we all know that is far from the truth.

Darth Rotor

27th October 2006, 09:01 AM

Many people disagree with me on Israel. The vast majority of them are not anti-Semites.

That would include me, on some topics.

To be called an anti-Semite by me you have to go way above and beyond.
It is frustrating to discuss, objectively, most of the matters in the Mid East when a partisan, emotionally driven pundit like Z-N (who at least is consistent in his approach and themes, and coherent in his presentation) accuses me of making "rationalizations" when I present cold, heartless analysis of the tensions between two sides of an extremely complex, and IMO generally unresolvable, political struggle.

The core irritant of the pro Israeli argument, whatever its merits legal and otherwise, is the assumption of virtue that is consistently interlaced in the points, themes, and soundbytes. That the pro Palestinian argument often strives for a similar inherent assumption does no credit to that position: the virtue of victimhood leaves me cold, and disdainful in most arguments.

As I see it, the cold, heartless condition is as follows: the UN created Israel culminating a 70 year lobbying effort by the European Zionist movement to do just that. Its creation was disputed and the problem resolved the old fashioned way, by blood and iron. Reality 1, UN 0. The fundamental geographic limitations of tools, time, and space, measured against the realities of mechanized and modern warfare, put Israel in an untenable strategic position in 1965-1967, with the result being a decision biased toward national survival. Fight or flight? They chose fight.

The Yom Kippur War clearly was a war of national survival. It redrew certain lines with blood and iron, on the map, via Israeli victory at arms and a US/UN intercession that saved the Egyptian 3rd Arrmy from a gory annihilation. What could have been a slaughter in the Sinai was averted. The sponsors of the Palestinians were soundly defeated, if they were even acting in that capacity at all. (Open to question, given the Sinai and Golan matters from 1967 that were key Egyptian and Syrian war aims.)

You can't negotiate very effectively with your neighboring nation states if you don't exist as a nation state. You have to work through sponsors. The Palestinian leadership have battered their heads against this reality, being beholden to others for their future viability, for the past 40 years. It is evident to me that Israeli leadership does not trust the viability of their nation state to sponsors: they prefer to hold their fate in their own hands. (Can anyone blame them for that? I think not.) So, the political tension sustains, and the Palestinian leadership's positions often frustrates its negotiating efforts. They don't have much bargaining power, and must thus rely on the "kindness of strangers." So, what means do they have to pursue their cause, when they hold bloody few cards to play at the table? One means is the use of force/violence to attempt an attrition of will in the opponent. That violence appears to have been a successful tool in the intafada's reinforces the idea that it can be effective again. Result: some Palestinian leadership chooses to play that card. Given the limited means at hand, in terms of bargaining power, I am not surprised that force is resorted to as a means to a political end. There is no virtue in this struggle: it is politics/war/power at its most integrated.

It is a war being fought by the entire spectrum of means, a text book case of 4th Generation Warfare as a multidimensional political struggle. This includes dragging others in to help resolve the conflict in one's favor. (Diplomatic power, search for allies) As a war deriving from the most visceral of motivations, it's outcome is not going to be final if the leadership doesn't materially change its position, particularly on the Palestinian side. Each dawn brings the sun, and for both sides another opportunity to advance their position by one means or another. Sometimes by money, by negotiation, by propaganda campaign, by violence. Whatever it takes.

In ten years' time, one possible outcome is that Israel no longer exists, the lines having been once again redrawn by blood and iron. Another is that the map will be different, but Israel and a Palestinian state will exist in somewhat better harmony than present. Another is that the stage will look pretty much as it does this morning, a nasty little "forever war."

I object to knee jerk reactions from pro-Israel partisans when my posts or points (like the rather coarse analysis above) aren't blatantly biased in favor of Israel's position. This intellectually lazy presumption of "if you are not for me, you must be against me" stifles discussion and understanding. For that reason alone, I will not miss Z-N. I will miss his digging up of interesting and useful links regarding the topic at hand.

DR

Skeptic

27th October 2006, 10:49 AM

That would include me, on some topics.

I don't think Mycroft (or anyone else on this forum) called you an antisemite.

Anyway, it is not so much the beliefs one holds about zionism or israel in theory, but the hatered of israel out of all proportion to its faults (while ignoring almost totally far worse crimes elsewhere) that is the mark of the antisemite. israel, for such people, is treated in the same way the jews in general are treated by antisemites--the double standard, the conspiracy theories, the desire to wipe it out.

Mycroft

27th October 2006, 12:12 PM

You are a loathsome person, twisting around what I say to suit your own perverted needs. I have Jewish friends, as do my children. These people I know are nothing like you.

Look, every time you propagate the lie that I call everyone who disagrees with me an anti-Semite I will refute your lie by listing a few of the real world examples of things I've seen in the past that go way beyond simple disagreement on Israel that really do lead me to that conclusion. You and I have both been down that road many times before, if you don't like where it leads, I suggest you simply put that particular lie to rest and stop propagating it.

Simple enough?

Stop telling the lie, you stop getting the standard refutation.

Now, if you want to debate anything with me and can refrain from calling me "a loathsome person" and other names, I'm more than willing. As always, I won't call anything "revisionist" that doesn't actually revise history, I won't call anything "apologist" that doesn't actually attempt to apologize for something nasty, I won't call anything "denial" that doesn't actually deny something you're well aware of, and I won’t call anything anti-Semitic that isn’t actually bigoted against Jews or propagate some anti-Semitic meme.

Fair enough?

Conversely, if you don’t want to debate anything with me, then you should have nothing more to say to me or about me, and we should never come into conflict again, right?

Mycroft

27th October 2006, 12:28 PM

OK, that's you're opinion, but the 'debunking' claimed the resolution stated something it did not.

By "resolution" do you mean UNSCR 242 as mentioned in the video?

Wow, we've been down that road before, let's take a peek at where it brought us in the past:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=475909#post475909

That's a post I wrote almost two years ago. What does it say?

In politics, semantics is everything.

For example, did you know that the PLO rejected resolution 242? Their reasoning was that it didn’t deal with Palestinian-Arabs as a people with national rights. This makes perfect sense, of course, as before 1967 they weren’t a people; the term Palestinian didn’t come into common usage until after 1967, prior to that they self-identified as Jordanians, or Egyptians or simply Arabs. Nope, the PLO didn’t accept Resolution 242 until 1988, and only after pressure from the United States which set it as a precondition to recognizing them.

But what about the resolution itself? What does it mean?

Well, let’s take a look at some statements from some of the diplomats of the time:

"To seek withdrawal without secure and recognized boundaries ... would be just as fruitless as to seek secure and recognized boundaries without withdrawal. Historically, there have never been secure or recognized boundaries in the area. Neither the armistice lines of 1949 nor the cease-fire lines of 1967 have answered that description... such boundaries have yet to be agreed upon. An agreement on that point is an absolute essential to a just and lasting peace just as withdrawal is... "

Arthur Goldberg, U.S. ambassador to the U.N

“The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary . . . "

Lord Caradon Britain’s representative to the U.N

"Until the states concerned in the dispute make peace in accordance with Resolution 242, the Security Council decided, Israel could remain in the territories it held after the Six Day War as occupying power. The legality and legitimacy of its presence as occupying power is thus certified by the Security Council"

Eugene V. Rostow U.S. Undersecretary of State.

So who cares what Eugene Rostow, Lord Caradon, and Arthur Goldberg think? Well, if you want to invoke UNSCR 242, you should. They’re the guys who wrote it.

Resolution 242 doesn’t call for Israel to withdraw from all the territories occupied in 1967. It presumes that a withdrawal will be a part of a negotiated peace between all parties involved, but it also presumes that the negotiated peace will include secure and defensible boundaries that are not the armistice lines of 1949.

So you know that Eugene Rostow, Lord Caradon and Arthur Goldberg the authors of UNSCR 242 purposefully didn't require Israel to withdraw from all territories captured in 1967. Further, we know you've been aware of this fact for at least 1 year and 8 months.

So what is that called when your perfectly aware of a historical fact but pretend as though you're not?

What is that word? I'm thinking a river. In Egypt maybe.

I'm sure it will come later.

Darth Rotor

27th October 2006, 12:39 PM

I don't think Mycroft (or anyone else on this forum) called you an antisemite.
I don't think him having done so either.
Anyway, it is not so much the beliefs one holds about zionism or israel in theory, but the hatered of israel out of all proportion to its faults (while ignoring almost totally far worse crimes elsewhere) that is the mark of the antisemite. israel, for such people, is treated in the same way the jews in general are treated by antisemites--the double standard, the conspiracy theories, the desire to wipe it out.
I share the concerns of some that the pro Israel lobby/advocacy groups wield an unhealthy influence on our Congress, but I also feel that lobby activities in general are becoming unhealthy influences on policy, Mid East and otherwise. (NAFTA expansion being one such concern.)

In defense of said pro Israel lobbyists, can you blame them for trying? In defense of Israel, can you blame the Israelis for trying to line up allies and supporters? Trying to sit in the shoes of the leadership in Jerusalem, I can't find fault with that point of view. Their strategic position is precarious, or can become so with just a few changes in the amount of support they can rely on. That does not necessitate that America be the sole enabler/supporter of addressing those concerns.

DR

a_unique_person

27th October 2006, 03:40 PM

"I have Jewish friends, as do my children. These people I know are nothing like you."
---- Mycroft is not jewish.

I know, that is the point

a_unique_person

27th October 2006, 03:45 PM

I don't think him having done so either.

I share the concerns of some that the pro Israel lobby/advocacy groups wield an unhealthy influence on our Congress, but I also feel that lobby activities in general are becoming unhealthy influences on policy, Mid East and otherwise. (NAFTA expansion being one such concern.)

In defense of said pro Israel lobbyists, can you blame them for trying? In defense of Israel, can you blame the Israelis for trying to line up allies and supporters? Trying to sit in the shoes of the leadership in Jerusalem, I can't find fault with that point of view. Their strategic position is precarious, or can become so with just a few changes in the amount of support they can rely on. That does not necessitate that America be the sole enabler/supporter of addressing those concerns.

DR

For the most part, I don't. But arguing the point with some will get you attacked, and accused of arguing the point for some manufactured reason, rather than being someone who is here to argue the point, that is, that in my opinion, Israel is wrong on several points in this issue.

EG, Skeptics implies that I have used the phrase, or think in terms of, "Dirty Jew", which I never have. It's his way of coping with differing views backed by evidence.

Mycroft has once again shown his ability in this thread to know what people are motivated by and how they think. He should do a mind reading test with the JREF and claims his million dollars. In his mind he thinks he knows why differing points of view to his own are not demonstrated much here now. It's not that his brilliant mind has seen them off, it's that people do not want to put up with the abuse.

webfusion

27th October 2006, 06:00 PM

Mycroft

27th October 2006, 08:42 PM

Mycroft has once again shown his ability in this thread...

You know, I'm starting to wonder if you don't personalize these fights as a deliberate tactic. You know you can’t win your argument on its merits because we’ve already had this argument in the past and you know full well the facts don’t support you. So what do you do? Make your assertion anyway, then blow a lot of smoke about how the big bad bullies won’t play nice with you so of course you can’t be expected to come up with that (non-existent) fact that redeems your already debunked claim.

Let’s recap:

Your claim is:

It is wrong from it's initial claim on the meaning of the UN resolution. The resolution [UNSCR 242 –ed] clearly states that land claimed by war cannot be held, it makes no qualifications.

Paraphrase of the same rebuttal (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=475909#post475909) from years ago:

The authors of UNSCR 242, Eugene Rostow, Lord Caradon, and Arthur Goldberg, each disagree with you and each say Israel was never intended to withdraw to pre 1967 borders but instead to negotiate new borders with its Arab neighbors. The language of UNSCR 242 was very specifically chosen to require withdrawal, but not total withdrawal.

Check and mate. You have no rebuttal to that, and that’s why, I believe, you want to make this about personalities instead of facts.

The Fool

27th October 2006, 09:47 PM

You know, I'm starting to wonder if you don't personalize these fights as a deliberate tactic. You know you can’t win your argument on its merits because we’ve already had this argument in the past and you know full well the facts don’t support you. So what do you do? Make your assertion anyway, then blow a lot of smoke about how the big bad bullies won’t play nice with you so of course you can’t be expected to come up with that (non-existent) fact that redeems your already debunked claim.

Let’s recap:

Your claim is:

Paraphrase of the same rebuttal (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=475909#post475909) from years ago:

The authors of UNSCR 242, Eugene Rostow, Lord Caradon, and Arthur Goldberg, each disagree with you and each say Israel was never intended to withdraw to pre 1967 borders but instead to negotiate new borders with its Arab neighbors. The language of UNSCR 242 was very specifically chosen to require withdrawal, but not total withdrawal.

Check and mate. You have no rebuttal to that, and that’s why, I believe, you want to make this about personalities instead of facts.
So you are critical of someone personalising an agument in a long winded post personalising the argument. Once again, if you believe you can read minds and decide peoples motivations then please apply for the million.

Why not try responding to what A-U-P asserts rather than your worked over version? He is trying to point out to you the obvious intention of 242 which was about the fact that retaining territory conquered in war is not acceptable. Why bring up the specific 67 borders and try to make the argument something about them alone? It is simply semantic fog and mirrors which seems to be all you have to use in your endless Israeli apologia.

You bring up the authors of 242.....well then. Who said this?

"Nonetheless, it is necessary to say again that the overwhelming principle was the ‘inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war’ and that meant that there could be no justification for the annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war."

I'll give you a hint....it was the chief author of the resolution....the same guy you use for your semantic based apologia.

"dog owners must prevent thier dogs crapping in the street"....let me guess, its ok because the dog on the end of your lead is not your dog? I guess that rule doesn't apply then eh? Lets not worry about dog crap in the streets and concentrate on the important issue of dog ownership.

242 was about preventing conquerors from keeping the land, you are not interested in that overwhelming fact and are much more interested in ways to rationalise whatever Israel decided to do...which appears to pretty much sum up what you believe is fair.

Mycroft

27th October 2006, 11:15 PM

So you are critical of someone personalising an agument in a long winded post personalising the argument. Once again, if you believe you can read minds and decide peoples motivations then please apply for the million.

:oldroll:

Why not try responding to what A-U-P asserts rather than your worked over version?

In fact, I responded directly to what he asserts. I even quoted it. It is he that refused to respond to anything, preferring instead to shout insults and to complain about being victimized.

He is trying to point out to you the obvious intention of 242 which was about the fact that retaining territory conquered in war is not acceptable.

You claim that’s “the” obvious intention as though there were no other “intentions.”

The intentions were to create a lasting peace with the participation of *all* sides. It doesn’t just place an obligation on the Israelis and everyone else be damned, it places obligations on all parties in that conflict. What does it require? From the resolution:

” Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”

Meaning that in addition to Israel withdrawing from territories occupied, it also requires the Arab states to recognize Israel, it’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence and its right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats and acts of force.

So how was UNSCR 242 supposed to do all that? From the resolution:

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

Wow, it was supposed to designate a Spedial Representative to talk to all the different parties until they could agree on how to implement the previous portions.

That's what UNSCR 242 is about; working through differences through negotiations. It's not a blanket demand placed on one side or the other, it's a set of goals to be worked towards by everyone.

So far every state that has lived up to that obligation has had its territory returned from Israel, as required.

Why bring up the specific 67 borders and try to make the argument something about them alone? It is simply semantic fog and mirrors which seems to be all you have to use in your endless Israeli apologia.

Your obfuscation doesn’t make the statements I quoted from the authors of UNSCR 242 go away.

You bring up the authors of 242.....well then. Who said this?

"Nonetheless, it is necessary to say again that the overwhelming principle was the ‘inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war’ and that meant that there could be no justification for the annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war."

I'll give you a hint....it was the chief author of the resolution....the same guy you use for your semantic based apologia.

I’m going to speculate here that the reason you’re not linking to your source is that any source that goes that deeply into Lord Caradon’s words will also contain information you don’t want in this argument. Such as Lord Caradon saying;

” We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately.. We all knew - that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever. [9].”

From Wikipedia, the only source I could find your quote at. I don’t mind citing it. Overall it supports my view much more than yours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242#_no te-9

242 was about preventing conquerors from keeping the land...

And Israel did not. Israel has negotiated peace (and returned territory) with everyone willing to negotiate peace. The holdouts still refuse to even recognize Israel.

...you are not interested in that overwhelming fact and are much more interested in ways to rationalise whatever Israel decided to do...which appears to pretty much sum up what you believe is fair.

I will remind you of your own words earlier in this very post. "...if you believe you can read minds and decide peoples motivations then please apply for the million."

You have just proven yourself a hypocrite. Again.

jmontecillo01

28th October 2006, 12:20 AM

MyCroft, let me ask you a question. You claim that building the settlements is necessary for Israel's survival.

So, why do they put civilians on those lands which will expose them to danger. If they are building military outposts then I might accept what you are saying. Still they have right to occupy those lands.

We all know that Israel is more than capable of defending itself, so what is the point of that claim.

jmontecillo01

28th October 2006, 12:38 AM

"Still they have no right to occupy those lands."

In addition, you cannot just take evrything that is fed to you as the gospel truth. That goes true for Isralie and Palestinians. You must always ask "Why, why, why". In that manner, you can see beyond the words that are fed to you.

a_unique_person

28th October 2006, 05:18 AM

Having started this thread with an OP declaring that "illegal Israeli settlements are rapidly growing" it is obvious to me that a_u_p has an issue with Israeli settlements.

He even says, to affirm that view:
In my opinion, Israel is wrong on several points in this issue.

No kidding! Hey, in everyone's opinion here, and I mean everyone's, Israel is wrong on several points (we all just differ on which points) ;)

Now, I've asked for some kind soul to summarize or concisely review here the article linked in Post #55 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2040481&postcount=55) and a_u_p offered:
"the 'debunking' claimed the resolution stated something it did not."

and I'm waiting to see what that means...
(talking about the 'inadmissibility' of conquering land in war is not a useful starting point. That is pretty much the same as saying it's 'inadmissible' to claim the moon is made of rocks, and it is really green cheese.)

Where, in the article, a_u_p, does the 'debunking' article (of 23 pages length) misquote the UNSCR 242 ?

It offers a different interpretation.

Here are Carandons own words

Friday July 05, 2002 at 12:39 pm
"It was from occupied territories that the Resolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt as a matter of fact East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. I[t] was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted.", Lord Hugh Caradon, (U.N. Security Council Resolution 242: A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity. Washington, D.C., Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, 1981). "There has been much bickering over whether that resolution (242) should say from "the" territories or from "all" territories. In the French version, which is equally authentic, it says withdrawal de territory, with de meaning "the." We wanted that to be left a little vague and subject to future negotiation because we thought the Israeli border along the West Bank could be "rationalized"; certain anomalies could easily be straightened out with some exchanges of territory, making a more sensible border for all parties. But we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war.",

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/world/israelborders1.php

It is quite clear, the only negotiation was over a few anomalies that could be straightened out a bit.

Mycroft

28th October 2006, 05:30 AM

It offers a different interpretation.

Here are Carandons own words

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/world/israelborders1.php

It is quite clear, the only negotiation was over a few anomalies that could be straightened out a bit.

It's also quite clear a unilateral withdrawal was not what he had in mind, but a negotiated withdrawal that involves an end to violence and a recognition of Israel and its right to live in peace. If you're going to start paying attention to this evidence all of a sudden, you have to recognize the responsibilities it places on the Arab side of the equation.

a_unique_person

28th October 2006, 05:39 AM

a_u_p, I've just read the thread cited, and it certainly illuminates you in a very bad light. You made a bold claim which sounded very anti-semetic and failed to provide any evidence of it. Despite being prompted repeatedly.

I provided a link, which does not work now after the database upgrade, to a story on Australian national TV, the ABC, relating how the neo-cons were, (not any more,a apparently), in the actions of the Bush administration after 9/11, when Bush was desperate for a plan of action. They provided him with one.

I also added, but no-one bothered to read,

This does no in way constitute a global Jewish conspiracy, but they are an important part of a world power that is running off the rails.

Why didn't they bother with that qualification? Because it doesn't suit their need to beat up on someone. I don't think Jews rule the world, want to run the world, or ever ran the world. The story was just about the neo-cons, are small but (formerly) influential group of like minded Jews who set about trying to create a fantasy in the Middle East. That fantasy is now in tatters, Wolfowitz has been shunted sideways to the World Bank.

Read the PNAC home page.

The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.

JONATHAN HOLMES: Let me ask you though, any suggestion of dual loyalty, I mean that's almost a kind of taboo phrase isn't it in the United States media and any suggestion particularly that the Jewish ethnicity of many of these people as well as their political sympathy with Likud you know has anything to do with or that it's legitimate to kind of question the appropriateness of their passionate attachment to Likud at the same time as they're US government officials. This is all a very taboo area isn't it?
JIM LOBE: Yeah. I mean I think it's safe to say that this is something that people talk about at their peril and they publish at their peril, it's a very sensitive subject. Just in the past week for example, a very prominent neo-conservative writer at the New Republic published a column in the Washington Post talking about a toxic debate and suggesting that people both here and in Europe were suggesting that we were going to war with Iraq because of the quote "Jewish connection" in a sense. He didn't exactly use word anti-Semitism but he argued that to even suggest dual loyalty in that sense was was toxic, was extremely damaging. I mean it's a very sensitive subject, it's discussed much more frankly in the Israeli press than it is in the US press or I think a lot of issues around Israel are handled very delicately in the United States, particularly in Washington, because it is a delicate matter.
JONATHAN HOLMES: But that doesn't mean presumably that it isn't a legitimate topic in a sense?
JIM LOBE: I think the main concern is that people are very concerned about being labelled an anti-Semite which is what happened to Pat Buchanan for example and frankly I think that Pat Buchanan is a kind of anti-Semite and incarnation of a lot of old isolationist US values of which one was anti-Semitism, so I think people are very intimidated by that and neo-conservatives have played that card quite frequently and out of conviction, I'm not entirely certain it's cynical on their part, but they have never hesitated to raise the issue of anti-Semitism and last spring as you'll recall when things were getting very hot between suicide bombing by Palestinians and Israeli retaliation, in Israel and the occupied territories, there was a huge cry, particularly by neo-conservative columnists and commentators here about European anti-Semitism, they were not reluctant to raise that as an issue. I think what's important too however is that this is a essentially a political issue, these people by and large support Likud, it's not the religious issue that is motivating them, they believe that Likud's conception of Israel is a good conception and is worth fighting for and those who oppose them do not agree with Likud and the vast majority of the American Jewish community according to polls that have been taken, show that American Jews by and large do not support the neo-conservative or Likud agenda in Israel and haven't for decades. In that respect the neo-conservatives are a minority within the American Jewish community but they are a very well organised, very vocal, very powerful minority.

So this is an Australian Government run TV program, for example. Are they anti-semitic? I had always assumed they were not.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2003/20030310_american_dreamers/int_lobe.htm

.

Mycroft

28th October 2006, 05:41 AM

MyCroft, let me ask you a question. You claim that building the settlements is necessary for Israel's survival.

Huh?!! I never made that claim. When you start off with an assumption that far removed from reality it suggests you're not arguing with me, but with some default position you believe I hold. I'd suggest you examine your own biases on the issues.

So, why do they put civilians on those lands which will expose them to danger. If they are building military outposts then I might accept what you are saying. Still they have right to occupy those lands.

Given that I didn't make the initial claim you say I did, this question doesn't make a lot of sense, but one thing you should remember is that a two-state negotiated solution with the Palestinians was not always the default assumption.

We all know that Israel is more than capable of defending itself, so what is the point of that claim.

Israel has worked hard to build the military it has, and it wasn't always as powerful as it is. If you're really interested in the topic, there can be found on-line descriptions of the tactical implications of certain geographic features that can aid your understanding of the strategic value of some land. There are also forum members who are knowlegable of military matters and/or members of the IDF.

a_unique_person

28th October 2006, 01:24 PM

"But we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war".

webfusion

28th October 2006, 01:54 PM

A_u_p ----- well, which is it?

Total inadmissibility (100%) of acquiring territory

or

inadmissibility of "significant" territory?

Israel is essentially unilaterally planning to hold onto just 5% of the West Bank, while already 0% of Jordanian territory, 0% of Egyptian territory, 0% of Lebanese territory, and 0% of Gaza is being held currently.
Syria can decide, at any time, to honor the terms incumbent upon them from UN 242 and proceed to negotiations. Or not.

By the way, were you aware that palestinians routinely expand their settlements illegally, and do not obtain anyone's permission before building?
Each week, probably hundreds of palestinians start new homes or expand existing ones, all without so much as a piece of paper to authorize that.

If you want evidence of that, you may wish to approach your newsmedia representatives to investigate. It shouldn't be too hard for them to gather such data, and report what they find.

a_unique_person

28th October 2006, 02:13 PM

webfusion

28th October 2006, 05:51 PM

There is not one word in 242 about the "Palestinians"

a_unique_person

28th October 2006, 06:34 PM

Don't they exist?

Mycroft

28th October 2006, 09:43 PM

Don't they exist?

False dichotomy. It's not a choice between them being mentioned in UNSCR 242 and not existing at all.

webfusion

28th October 2006, 10:20 PM

The criticism of the Palestinian video was accurate and precise.

(my intent was) showing that the criticism of the Palestinian video was wrong, from the start. It did exactly what it said the video did, misrepresenting that resolution.

In that 23-page document, you have yet to show where the misrepresentation occurred.

You say only:
"It offers a different interpretation."

How so? 242 makes no direct reference to palestinian lands, because in the aftermath of the Six Day War of 1967, no such thing existed. At all.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

From your post #6, (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2036292&postcount=6) you have been telling us that the "fight has been for land" and that is just wrong. The fight has been, from the start, arabs refusing jews to settle in palestine. Palestine, which you must by now realize, as defined by the San Remo Conference in the aftermath of WW1. In 1920, were the Jews fighting over Gaza? Hebron? Ramallah? The entire eastern salient of Palestine?
(ceded over the course of the next few years after San Remo to the Hashemite King). Southern Syria? The Sykes-Picot lines in Palestinian Lebanon?

"From the Start" --- in your own words, a_u_p, which does not mean 1948 and the War of Independence. And it certainly doesn't mean 1967 and UN 242.

Mycroft

28th October 2006, 10:28 PM

My primary interest was not in debating this particular topic, but showing that the criticism of the Palestinian video was wrong, from the start. It did exactly what it said the video did, misrepresenting that resolution. You can argue exactl what it's intention is, but it appears that the Palestinian interpretation is just as arguable as the Israeli one. To just condemn it outright as propaganda intended to deceive by using the listed means of manipulation, is simply wrong.

Except that the claim of the movie is that Israel has "yet" to comply with UNSCR 242, which is false. Israel has withdrawn from the vast majority of territories occupied in 1967.

You, the creaters of the movie, and the Palestinian position in general, propagates this propaganda that depends on maintaining a state of denial. You want to pick and choose the parts of UNSCR 242 that you like, but you want to pretend the parts you don't like don't exist.

One part you like:

"Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war..."

One part you don't like:

"...and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,"

One part you like:

"(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict"

One part you don't like:

"(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force"

Even in people, there are words of Lord Caradon that you like:

"But we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war".

And other words you don't like and would pretend don't exist:

"It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary . . . "

The truth is that any honest reading of UNSCR 242 shows that the intent was for Israel to withdraw from territories occupied in 1967, but that the withdrawal should also be a part of a negotiated peace. Israel did negotiate peace with Egypt and withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula, then Israel did negotiate peace with Jordan and agreed with a border with them. Israel has not only satisfied it’s obligations under UNSCR 242, but also stands willing to negotiate further with the Palestinians, if only they could get their act together and form something cohesive to negotiate with. The film deliberately omits any mention of Israeli withdrawals, and states unfactually that it has “yet to comply” as though Israel has done nothing at all. That’s why it’s deceptive, and that’s why claiming it’s not deceptive while being aware of these facts is little more than historical revisionism.

webfusion

28th October 2006, 10:51 PM

The word "the" is not present in the UNSCR document cited.
It is not open to interpretation. It is a fact that Israel has relinquished Territories. It is a fact that Israel has withdrawn from Gaza & Sinai and has entered into a formal land-demarcation treaty with Jordan, and has withdrawn to the Sykes-Picot lines in Lebanon. Israel has complied, and has even extended its' hand to parties not even mentioned in that document --- the Palestinians.

What do the Palestinians want?
Peace?

Return Shalit, stop the Qassems.
Good start for the Palestinians, here in the period after Ramadan 1427.

Are they simply incapable of it?
I am of the opinion that they are absolutely incapable of it.

a_unique_person

29th October 2006, 01:51 AM

When Israel first occupied the Palestinians, it was relatively peaceful. The time for action was 1967. Read Robert Manne.

When things get weird, don't expet predictability or rationality. Who knows what desperate people will do, they have nothing to lose.

Arafts second intifada was a mistake, they are painted into a corner just as much as the Iraeli's.

webfusion

29th October 2006, 06:25 AM

When Israel first occupied the Palestinians, it was relatively peaceful. The time for action was 1967. Read Robert Manne.

Sure, I've read his articles, specifically this one:
Nightmare of Occupation (http://www.theage.com.au/news/robert-manne/israel-and-the-nightmare-of-occupation/2004/12/05/1102182152001.html)

Your statement is absurd, with all due respect, a_u_p.

1. "When Israel first occupied" --- 1890's

2. "The Palestinians" --- who were the palestinians in the 1890's?

3. "it was relatively peaceful" --- except for the ongoing raids, the killings, the ambushes, the 1929 massacre of the entire jewish population of Hebron and the violent eviction of the jews from their native homes and holy places in jerusalem.

4. "The time for action was 1967" --- war of self defense.
How come in the years 1956-1967 you ignore all the action taking place by fedayyin terrorists? (the fathers and grandfathers of today's islamic terrorists in the HAMAS and other Jihadist organizations).
Oh, nevermind, it was all relatively peaceful. (see #3 above)

5. "Read Robert Manne." --- You mean the part where he says: "I am not a specialist in the politics of the Middle East."
Neither are you, apparently, a_u_p.

Israel is not painted into any corner. Israelis are perfectly capable and wise enough decide the course of our future, and we will do so, without any lame advice from Robert Manne. If that involves building more lovely housing in the suburbs of jerusalem, and reinforcing existing villages and consolidating our hold on the land, and reducing the Palestinians to the margins behind a wall/fence, then so be it.

Their choice. They have made their own lives a nightmare. Apparently they seem to wish to continue it.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/780582.html
In the Al-Fara'a refugee camp, east of Jenin, two Palestinians were killed by IDF troops - Fadi Sabah, 24, a member of Islamic Jihad, and Mustafa Zlat, 17, of the Al-Auda Brigades.

According to IDF sources, the soldiers encountered six Palestinians planning to attack them. Sabah carried a pistol, and Zlat was armed with an ax.

Mycroft

29th October 2006, 09:56 AM

When Israel first occupied the Palestinians, it was relatively peaceful. The time for action was 1967. Read Robert Manne.

The PLO was formed in 1964, three years before the 1967 war. It was formed from pre-existing terrorist organizations. You may easily verify this information:

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

Therefore your assertion that Palestinians were relatively peaceful prior to 1967 is little more than revisionism.

When things get weird, don't expet predictability or rationality. Who knows what desperate people will do, they have nothing to lose.

Not only is this apologist in nature, but it’s a complete diversion from your stated topic, which supposedly is demonstrating that this rebuttal (http://www.jcrc.org/israel/p3l/P3L-Review.pdf) of this piece of propaganda (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696) is untrue. Have you now conceded that you can’t do that?

Arafts second intifada was a mistake, they are painted into a corner just as much as the Iraeli's.

Painted into a corner? What would have stopped Arafat from negotiating at Camp David in 2000? He could have come home a hero and a father of a new nation. Instead, he had to start another Intifada to draw attention away from what he did.