[luke warm]

"We give the Zionist enemy until 0600 [0300 GMT] tomorrow, Tuesday 4 July."

from the bbc

the question is, if you have a pride of lions surrounding your grass hut, and you know they're very angry, do you say "i give you until dawn to get the hell out of here?" i doubt the lions would be impressed

[hrothgar]

The Israeli's are learning a very basic lesson...

Smashing the Palestinian "state" was very easy. However, when you destroy what little centralized authority was available to the Palestinians you also destroy any possibility for negotiation.

Its a lot easier dealing with one relatively centralized group of idiots than 50 random groups of idiots...

[pbleighton]

"The Israeli's are learning a very basic lesson..."

I don't think either the Israelis or the Palestinians have learned much since the British robbed the Palestinians of a chunk of their land and gave it to the Jews, one of the worst-considered pieces of racist social engineering in world history.

The Palestinians will have to accept historical injustice, and recognize Israel's right to exist. It is not going away, and the Israelis have acquired the right to live there by longetivity. Israel should never have been established, but it was (actually, it should have been established in Germany after WWII, but that is another story...). They can look to Native Americans for grief counselling.

The Israelis have to make peace, something they haven't ever sincerely tried to do (nor have the Palestinians, for that matter). Oslo fell apart, and it took two sides to fail to tango.. the Israeli peremptory dismissal of a Palestinian Right Of Return doomed whatever chance the agreement had. If they don't, well, Tom Friedman of the New York Times, who generally takes the Israeli side, said it best: if the Israelis don't make peace, someone will detonate a nuclear bomb in Tel Aviv within the next thirty years. They can kill as many Palestinians as they wish, and turn Gaza into a free-range concentration camp, but there is no final solution to their problem without peace.

[Walddk]

I'd like to see the person who thinks it's a brilliant idea to negotiate with people whose aim it is to wipe you out and throw you into the sea. You do not negotiate with terrorists because that would be a vicious spiral. Israel is no different from the United States on this issue.

Until Hamas recognises the State of Israel, there will be no peace in the Middle East. We have been waiting for 58 years, and we are going to wait much longer I fear.

Roland

[pbleighton]

"Israel is no different from the United States on this issue."

True, alas.

Peter

[Walddk]

pbleighton, on Jul 4 2006, 02:59 AM, said:

"Israel is no different from the United States on this issue."

True, alas.

Peter

If I understand you correctly, you think it would be a great idea if President Bush sits down and negotiates with Osama bin Laden. If that is how you see it, I'd like to emphasize that I disagree as strongly as I possibly can.

You do not negotiate with terrorists, period.

Roland

[jdeegan]

Palestinian irredentism doesn't look much different from the 1920 IRA brand that 'claimed' the six northern counties (and still does, I think). None of this foolishness makes any sense to Americans. Why not settle up, and get on with life?

When we took land from the native americans we could support 50 persons on the same land that supported one indian. They were screwed and while they sometimes fought, they generally knew it. Some Cherokee council debates have survived, and they concerned how cope - fight (a minority view) or try to adopt white men's ways (which they did a good job of). Sioux chief Sitting Bull, whose army scalped General Custer, later toured with Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show. After seeing New York, London and Paris he opined that if he had known how many whites there were, he would never made war.

By the way, the shred of sovereignty retained by the tribes has been worth quite a bit lately. Tribal casinos and zero tax tobacco sales, to say nothing of mineral royalties, has been quite the economic boon for many tribes. Finally, revenge, making good off the white man's vices.

[Impact]

I am no apologist for much of Israel's policy but let's take a few basic points:-

1. The Palestinians (along with a number of nations) deny Israel's right to exist;

2. The preferred method for many of the Palestinians (I hesitate to claim a majority - but the polls I have seen on the web suggest it would be so) is the elimination of every Israeli Jew;

3. In furthering the aim set out in 2 above a not insignificant number are prepared to sacrifice their own lives as suicide bombers;

4. The suicicide bombers have widespreaad support from nations and from the Palestinian "government";

5. Even moderates who deplore suicide bombers, support the continued bombing and killing of civilians (including women and children).


Under these circumstances, when your basic right to exist is denied (and as a race you have seen what happened), peaceful negotiation is not going to lead to anything except your extermination.

By contrast, I happen to agree that there is little or no point in Israel's occupation of West Bank and /or Gaza - and probably never was.

The Golan Heights has some security value (but increasingly little compared to 1967).

The policy of settlement and "Greater Israel" was - at best- ill-advised or a poor negotiating tactic partly at least created by the bizarre nature of israeli politics and proportional representation in the Knesset as we watched the 2 main parties form alliances with oddball parties (some of the ultra-orthodox being the worst offenders) and hijacking both domestic and foreign policy.

As for the "Right of Return" and compensation: ignoring for the moment the arguments about the basis and reason that many left (the arab armies sweeping all before them and the desire not to be in the way for some, yes discrimination against others...) it seems strange that the same arab states which scream for a right of return exercised all kinds of expropriation against Jews living in those states following variously 1948, 1956 & 1967 and there has never been any suggestion of compensation.....he who seeks equity, must first do equity.

A Jewish state (and I have some difficulty with a religious state of any kind) would cease to exist as a predominantly Jewish state by natural birthrate if all the "Palestinians and their claimed descendants" were permitted return. Now you may argue that would be no bad thing but I have a more than sneaking suspicion that the reintegration would be worse than separatism: the cure being worse than the disease.

Funny thing about the Palesinian authorities: they want recognition as a state but they don't want the responsibility for curbing their citizens in taking action against Israel.

Finally, whatever you may think of the various policies (and Anglo-Saxons are predisposed to notions of fairplay and take the side of the underdog when one side has a dramatically higher order of firepower than the other), the very basis of any state's compact with its citizens is their protection: so Israel has very little choice in pursuing and protecting its own, and trying to attain a situation in which people can gather for coffee, a meal , a celebration or transport without fearing for their lives on a daily basis.

When your nation is tiny and surrounded there are only so may compromises and concessions you can give - each in the hope that it will halt the desire for the cessation of your existence. Oddly enough each concession results in the the Oliver Twist mentality: "Please Sir, may I have some more". When what you are talking about is a right to exist and breathe, it doesn't come much more basic....

Sure, we would all like to see mutual respect and tolerance - but it isn't happening in a any hurry.
I think it was Golda Meir who presciently suggested in the 1960's that there will only be peace when the arabs love their own children more than they hate the Jews. In societies which praise, honour and reward suicide bombers I wouldn't hold my breath.

Also remember that what in Western society might pass for gratitude or appreciation is frequently lost: I believe the USA is or was the largest single donor to the Palestinians but that does not result in gratitude, instead they are the great Satan. The whole mindset has to be changed but the West is obsessed with its own notions and expectations without examining those of the people they are trying to help. By now, you might have thought that the penny would have dropped that giving regular aid does not make a group grateful - just reliant upon it, budgeting for it as a given and very upset when it is not increased as is their right! (and I note that applies across the board).

here endeth the rant

[keylime]

From the 18th to the 20th of July this month, there will be a huge happening involving Christians who support Israel here in D.C., ran by Pastor John Hagee's ministry. I for one will be there.

Having been to Israel in my travels (don't ask why) I can tell three things that are absolute certainties:

1. The people of Israel will fight to the last man, woman, and child.

2. The IDF pound for pound is the best fighting force in the world. I'd pick them everyday of the week, especially in a ground/tank battle.

3. Israel will not lose another conflict. They also at the same time have no quarrels about making sure their security is well secure. And they won't have need (nor does America to be quite blunt about it) for the pitiful excuse called the United Nations and their "resolutions".

[whereagles]

pbleighton, on Jul 4 2006, 12:57 AM, said:

I don't think either the Israelis or the Palestinians have learned much since the British robbed the Palestinians of a chunk of their land and gave it to the Jews, one of the worst-considered pieces of racist social engineering in world history.

Well, that chunk of land has always been troubled. Before that were the cruzades, the romans, etc.. Today, its geo-strategical importance as a beach-head to middle east oil makes it imperious for oil-addicted nations to control it.

At all cost.

[Walddk]

whereagles, on Jul 4 2006, 09:53 AM, said:

pbleighton, on Jul 4 2006, 12:57 AM, said:

I don't think either the Israelis or the Palestinians have learned much since the British robbed the Palestinians of a chunk of their land and gave it to the Jews, one of the worst-considered pieces of racist social engineering in world history.

Well, that chunk of land has always been troubled. Before that were the cruzades, the romans, etc.. Today, its geo-strategical importance as a beach-head to middle east oil makes it imperious for oil-addicted nations to control it.

At all cost.

Another famous Golda Meir quote:

"Moses dragged us for 40 years through the desert to bring us to the one place in the Middle East where there was no oil".

[P_Marlowe]

keylime, on Jul 4 2006, 01:50 AM, said:

<snip>
And they won't have need (nor does America to be quite blunt about it) for the pitiful excuse called the United Nations and their "resolutions".
<snip>

This attidute is one reason, why the state of the world
is as it is.
America now learns the hard way, what Germany,
and for that matter the Europe, learned 1914-1918
and 1939-1945.
If one country thinks, it can do it alone, it will fail.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pbleighton]

"If I understand you correctly, you think it would be a great idea if President Bush sits down and negotiates with Osama bin Laden."

No, but I think it would be a great idea if Bush was able to distinguish one Muslim from another and not invade a country which had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11. "jaw-jaw is better than war-war" - Winston Churchill

I the same vein, I I think it would be a great idea if Israel realized that many Palestinians want peace, and stopped their "only on our terms, m*********s" attititude toward negotiation. I think the same of the Palestinians.

This would take a while, but it is their ONLY chance for long-term survival.

BTW, Israelis have murdered far more Palestinians than Palestinians have murdered Israelis. This is a tragedy of an occupation and a civil war, and your demonization of the entire Palestinian people and willful historical ignorance contributes nothing to the discussion.

Peter

[pbleighton]

"When we took land from the native americans we could support 50 persons on the same land that supported one indian. "

Huh?

The best current estimates are that there were between 50 and 100 million Native Americans in the U.S. before European colonization. By the end of the 19th century there were about 2 million.

Peter

[pbleighton]

"Under these circumstances, when your basic right to exist is denied (and as a race you have seen what happened), peaceful negotiation is not going to lead to anything except your extermination."

This is a nonsensical statement. You are equating ongoing negotiation with laying down your arms, which I have never advocated.

"As for the "Right of Return" and compensation: ignoring for the moment the arguments about the basis and reason that many left (the arab armies sweeping all before them and the desire not to be in the way for some, yes discrimination against others...) it seems strange that the same arab states which scream for a right of return exercised all kinds of expropriation against Jews living in those states following variously 1948, 1956 & 1967 and there has never been any suggestion of compensation.....he who seeks equity, must first do equity."

You are completely missing the point. I hold no brief for the corrupt (largely U.S. installed and/or supported) Arab regimes. It is the Palestianians Israel must negotiate with.

The rest of the Arab world is relevant because, in the absence of a solution to the Palestinian problem, Israel will be subject to a nuclear attack. This will most likely come from a terrorist group, since if a country did it, it would be subject to horrible reprisal (of course Israel will seek revenge in this case anyway).

This attack is possible even with a generally accepted solution. It is nearly certain without one.

It is interesting that neither you nor any of the other anti-Palestinian posters address either the above scenario or the historical injustice against the Palestinians in this situation. The Palestinians didn't deserve to pay for Christian (culminating in Nazi) atrocities agains the Jews. Now they (and the Israelis) are paying for this injustice. If they don't work it out between them they will both likely perish.

Peter

[whereagles]

pbleighton, on Jul 4 2006, 12:19 PM, said:

No, but I think it would be a great idea if Bush was able to distinguish one Muslim from another and not invade a country which had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11.

What's this all about? I thought we all knew the reason the US invaded Iraq was to sit on top of their oil reserves

[luke warm]

P_Marlowe, on Jul 4 2006, 04:14 AM, said:

keylime, on Jul 4 2006, 01:50 AM, said:

<snip>
And they won't have need (nor does America to be quite blunt about it) for the pitiful excuse called the United Nations and their "resolutions".
<snip>

This attidute is one reason, why the state of the world is as it is. America now learns the hard way, what Germany, and for that matter the Europe, learned 1914-1918 and 1939-1945. If one country thinks, it can do it alone, it will fail.

With kind regards
Marlowe

you state that as an absolute... why? i have the opposite view, i think that for the usa and england and many others to abdicate their sovereignty to the authority of a world body would be a mistake... work diplomatically in as universal a sense as possible, yes... but when the values that made a country great, and i firmly believe the usa is a great albeit imperfect country, are compromised, the country no longer exists

there are people here and in other countries who denigrate america at every opportunity - until they need help... sometimes they do so while receiving help... i can understand perfectly the isolationist point of view, sometimes one wonders what the result would be if america just withdrew all forms of involvement in another nations's affairs unless asked

in any case, and back on topic, i noted today that israel is making noises about punishing syria for its part in funding/supporting terrorists... should israel just go ahead and attack them also?

Quote

I don't think either the Israelis or the Palestinians have learned much since the British robbed the Palestinians of a chunk of their land and gave it to the Jews, one of the worst-considered pieces of racist social engineering in world history.

The Palestinians will have to accept historical injustice, and recognize Israel's right to exist

i have a problem with this, in that i'm not sure upon what it is based... what makes the british acts one of the "worst pieces of racist social engineering..." it seems that the "historical injustice" spoken of is a conclusion based on the opinion that what happened in 1948ish was morally wrong... but it seems to be only an opinion

Quote

"If I understand you correctly, you think it would be a great idea if President Bush sits down and negotiates with Osama bin Laden."

No, but I think it would be a great idea if Bush was able to distinguish one Muslim from another and not invade a country which had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11

well i think it's far from universally accepted that iraq had "absolutely NOTHING" to do with 9/11... no money, no succor, no safe harbor, no intelligence, no NOTHING... one wonders why such an assertion would be made

[Walddk]

pbleighton, on Jul 4 2006, 02:19 PM, said:

I the same vein, I I think it would be a great idea if Israel realized that many Palestinians want peace, and stopped their "only on our terms, m*********s" attititude toward negotiation.

You must have misunderstood my intentions. I am all for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, but I am also all against negotiations with terrorists.

Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Therefore, Israel cannot and should not sit down and negotiate with those people. No-one would want to negotiate with individuals who want to destroy you and your people.

Not that it matters much anyway, sadly, because Hamas doesn't recognise Israel. The Palestinians decided to let Hamas be in charge. It was truly bad for the peace process in the region.

Roland

[Winstonm]

Quote

You must have misunderstood my intentions. I am all for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, but I am also all against negotiations with terrorists.

I believe it was Zionists pre-Israel who killed 200 at the King David Hotel with a bomb. When the terrorists become the country, what then?

[keylime]

I expect Syria to finally realize that the endgame is near and the Israelis have the much better hand.

To counter the view that the United Nations actually does more good than harm, let me offer some facts:

1. The UN allowed Saddam through the oil-for-food sham for the Iraqi gov't to monitor the dispensing of funds instead of a neutral 3rd party. Instead of resolution adhereance, we got shot at by modernized arms during the entire period of the program.

2. The UN receives from the US something like a quarter roughly of its nearly 4 billion dollar operating budget, and we play a quarter roughly of the peacekeeping costs around the world, and give billions more for related UN operations. Instead of gratitude from the UN, we end being the lone stalwart for freedom and independence.

3. The UN is incapable of stopping nuclear proliferation.

4. The UN peacekeepers in regions that UNICEF are active in are committing offenses against women and girls that are unthinkable for a task force devoted to stabilizing the area.

5. The UN willingly edited our vital details about the assassination of a freely elected prime minster of Lebanon, even when it was determined that high-ranking Syrian officials were directly involved.

6. What we consider conflict of interests, the UN considers additional income and gleefully takes it.

7. The French, the Russians, and the Chinese directly benefitted from the oil-for-food program. The oil contracts that were signed has those three countries very predominant on the list for reimbursements. Anyone of you that thinks the French gov't is pro-American need a strong slap.

8. What does the UN Sec-General really need with a nearly 20 million dollar home in NYC? You realize how many MILLIONS of people would directly benefit if the properties that the UN member nations have currently were deemed to be taxable? What about all those unpaid parking tickets too?

9. The sense of utopian entitlement that the UN staff has is just mindboggling. Between the banking, the health care benefits, and the other perks...unless you REALLY rock the boat or screw up you're set for life.

So, does the United States really need the UN? Absolutely NOT. That's why Freedom House was formed - it was to rid ourselves of the draconian and limiting attributes of the UN down to the core belief that each individual should have a chance to be what they want to be. In 30 years, the trend of freedom has been expansive and will continue to do so - especially in Africa and the Middle East.