[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Israelis don't have to move; they just need to stop moving.

Stop moving? When was the last time Israel expanded?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You haven't told me what you think is wrong with my views.

This is what's wrong with your views:

"A recently fabricated popular identity that is predicated on evil intent and propped up by historical revisionism is one that I reject and will continue to reject as illegitimate and worthless, even if G-d forbid, there are still Arabs calling themselves that wretched name generations from now."

You think you're going to make progress by sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "you don't exist la-la-la-lol I reject the idea of you, now be convinced by my historical reasoning." It's farcical. All the more so because you proudly declare you have another poster on "ignore" while in the same sentence NOT ignoring him, by starting a fight over something he just retracted 30 minutes earlier.

Here's what it boils down to. Israel is objectively "right," and Arab hard-liners are objectively "wrong." But Jewish hard-liners like you are no better than the Arab hard-liners. You both declare that the other side is "evil" based on your fundamentalist beliefs. You both want the other side annihilated never to return. Big Mac, you're Ahmadinejad's doppelganger, the only difference is that you're wearing a different color uniform. Would you be at all surprised to hear Ahmadinejad say this (I wouldn't):

"A recently fabricated popular identity [Israeli] that is predicated on evil intent and propped up by historical revisionism is one that I reject and will continue to reject as illegitimate and worthless, even if Allah forbid, there are still Jews calling themselves that wretched name generations from how."

You (and your counterparts on the other side) are what is impeding progress. Just because you are backing the right horse doesn't make you right. I know it's hard for someone as embittered as you to change your mind, so in lieu of that I'll just say that Israel's peaceful continued existence would benefit greatly if you and those like you would simply bite your tongue when hateful thoughts like these find you. Turn the other cheek, so to speak.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Stop moving? When was the last time Israel expanded?

He's talking about settlements

[lpkmckenna]

I was preparing my answer to Big Mac's question about Israeli atrocities, but now why bother? He's not gonna read it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I was preparing my answer to Big Mac's question about Israeli atrocities, but now why bother? He's not gonna read it.

I guess he's only interested in listening to "truth" that agrees with him?

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I was preparing my answer to Big Mac's question about Israeli atrocities, but now why bother? He's not gonna read it.

He took his ball and went home????

[Hawkeye_a]

lpkmckenna,
I'm kinda thinking your mind is pretty must completely set/closed to the legal aspect of this conflict all-together. I've outlined why the moral dimensions of this issue are a non issue as the Arabs tent to get preferential treatment due to oil, with the Israelis constantly having to compromise what they were LEGALLY entitled to.

I still think you are taking the 'populist' (as in popular) stance against Israel and totally disregarding the legal aspect, so I’ll try and reiterate the highlights:

1. The British Mandate (entire) was put aside for the Jewish homeland. Jews were already living and had settled there prior to this (disregarding historic ties to the region altogether for this argument).

2. When the British left, that created a power vacuum. The neighboring Arab states, in their quest to expand geographically and maintain predominately Muslim/Islamic rule over the entire region of the Middle East, refused to accept an independent Jewish state on land that had been conquered by Muslims earlier. The Jews, however, wanted a nation of they’re own, and organized accordingly, and with complete legal support of the U.N. attained it. Compromises were made by the Jewish leaders at that time in order to secure a piece of land 8000 sqmiles, a fraction of the size originally intended, for a Jewish state. And still they chose negotiations over war, as opposed to the Arabs.

3. The refugee problem is a direct result of the Arab policy to wage war for territorial expansion, yet they are allowed to wipe their hand clean (except for the funds and arsenal supplied to fight against Israel of course), and expect Israel to maintain some form of security and standard there, while pouring aid in for the Arab refugees (and no "Palestineans" do NOT exist.... show me a 'passport' with a nation of that name on it, they are Arabs, and they are refugees (self proclaimed) and by that definition, they cannot be a country/state/nation, as they have not agreed upon boundaries with their neighbours. You keep pressing this point, but by any definition of the words nation/country/state, certain privileges and rights are implied, which are not associated with refugee camps. So are they a state/nation or are they refugees? You cannot have it both ways. And by the reality on the ground, it is obvious they are not a nation by definition, as they have not agreed to territorial boundaries with all their neighbors, and the U.N. does not recognize them as a state.)

4. No Arab state will take responsibility for their welfare or their(refugees) actions. Why? Because then (like with Lebanon) they would be responsible for what goes on behind the borders. It’s sort of a 'legal loophole' that Muslim nations are using the world over when engaged in conflict with.....well.....everyone else.

5. The only reason why Israel still controls the west bank TODAY is because if they leave it's obvious to EVERYONE what will ensue...it happened in gaza when they left. and if and when it happens in the west bank and you can expect a similar magnitude of life lost. So what are Israel's choices here? Control gaza and the west bank to ensure Israelis their safety? Annex both completely and hope for the best (even when they will get the worst) ? Give in to historically uncompromising Arabs, and concede even more in the hopes for peace? If it were "Canada" instead of Israel in that situation what would you have them do?

6. Legally Israel can have the entire region west of Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea. It could expel/exile all the Arabs from the refugee camps, the way all the Muslim nations expelled Jews, Christians, Zorastrans, etc.. And suffered nothing as a consequence...just because they have oil. Israel could have refused to sign the water sharing deal in Oslo, thus obligating them to giving the refugees nothing, not a SINGLE DROP.

You keep implying that Israel is the bad guy in this equation, yet throughout the 60+ years it has only sought for peaceful coexistence, absorbing the religious extremism of it's neighbors while affording full citizenship to people of various faiths as I pointed out earlier and not penalizing them for the actions of their kin. All the Arabs have been asked to do throughout this conflict is to maintain secure borders with Israel, which none are willing to comply with. If it's not Iraq, its Lebanon, if its not Lebanon, its Syria, if not Syria, the refugees, or Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, now it's Iran, etc.... When has Israel ever encroached on Iran/Iraq/S.Arabia's territory, and any of the other Muslim countries she doesn't share a border with? Border disputes can arise with neighbors I get that, but countries half a world away ? so what’s their beef apart from the fact that Israel is not a Muslim nation ?

And i stick to my view that if the Arabs enjoying Israeli citizenship cannot take an oath to Israel, they need not be burdened with Israeli citizenship. Any country which provides citizenship to people requires them to take an oath and fulfill some basic obligations to the country accepting them as an equal member of society, you are not forced to take the oath, but by refusing to do so you also forfeit citizenship, and i think that should be a prerequisite for anyone Jews/Christian/Muslim who wants or has Israeli citizenship. In fact I think it's shameful and racist for Israel to discriminate its Muslim population (20%) by not endowing on them the same responsibilities and duties it does on it's other citizens.

Consider this oversimplified version:
-"Free the refugees”?
-What is Israel asking for in return? .....secure borders. They gave Egypt and Jordan and Lebanon back EVERYTHING legally obligated to. Despite the flimsy border security.
-What are the Arabs asking for? .... More.
-The Arabs were offered a state TWICE, and they refused!!! The Jews in the region took whatever the U.N. decided, as pointed out earlier.

Imagine all this could have been avoided had the Arabs chosen negotiations during any period after 1947. Yet, if you researched what i suggest earlier, you will realize what was needed to get the Egyptians to talk and stop the rhetoric and war mongering.

I suggest your rebuttal have some legal dimension to it, cause if all you are going on is personal opinion, and a short term view of the conflict you cannot expect anyone to take you seriously, except for other people with short-term-views of this conflict and the muslims/arabs who will patronize you because of your support regardless of the legality/morality. Muslims/Arabs also tend to grab at anything when trying to vilify Jews/Christians/Hindus/Buddhists/etc....especially when it involved territorial disputes.

edit>>sorry for the typos guys.

[Big Mac]

Bless you, Hawkeye.

[nonhuman]

That's an awesome reply Hawkeye. Saving it for future reference!

[lpkmckenna]

Big Mac and nonhuman are quite easily impressed, it seems.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

lpkmckenna, I'm kinda thinking your mind is pretty must completely set/closed to the legal aspect of this conflict all-together.

I'm pretty closed-minded about treating people like cattle and shipping them to another country to satisfy rabid zealots.

1. The British Mandate (entire) was put aside for the Jewish homeland.

The British Mandate (of Palestine, words you forgot) was the document that guided British rule, not Israeli independence. That was the 1967 establishment of Israel and Palestine as separate states. The Mandate only established British goals, but regardless of its contents, its relevance vanished when British rule ended.

Jews were already living and had settled there prior to this (disregarding historic ties to the region altogether for this argument).

The Palestinians lived there too.

2. When the British left, that created a power vacuum. The neighboring Arab states, in their quest to expand geographically and maintain predominately Muslim/Islamic rule over the entire region of the Middle East, refused to accept an independent Jewish state on land that had been conquered by Muslims earlier.

You can't blame the Arab nations for wanting control over land they once controlled, prior to the British colonization.

The Jews, however, wanted a nation of they’re own, and organized accordingly, and with complete legal support of the U.N. attained it. Compromises were made by the Jewish leaders at that time in order to secure a piece of land 8000 sqmiles, a fraction of the size originally intended, for a Jewish state. And still they chose negotiations over war, as opposed to the Arabs.

Those "compromises made at the time" are the founding terms of the nation of Israel. When you sign on the dotted line, you don't get to cross your fingers behind your back.

3. The refugee problem is a direct result of the Arab policy to wage war for territorial expansion, yet they are allowed to wipe their hand clean (except for the funds and arsenal supplied to fight against Israel of course), and expect Israel to maintain some form of security and standard there, while pouring aid in for the Arab refugees (and no "Palestineans" do NOT exist.... show me a 'passport' with a nation of that name on it, they are Arabs, and they are refugees (self proclaimed) and by that definition, they cannot be a country/state/nation, as they have not agreed upon boundaries with their neighbours. You keep pressing this point, but by any definition of the words nation/country/state, certain privileges and rights are implied, which are not associated with refugee camps. So are they a state/nation or are they refugees? You cannot have it both ways. And by the reality on the ground, it is obvious they are not a nation by definition, as they have not agreed to territorial boundaries with all their neighbors, and the U.N. does not recognize them as a state.)

What a soup of nonsense. I never mentioned refugees, and I don't consider them refugees, so I'm not asking for anything "both ways."

4. No Arab state will take responsibility for their welfare or their(refugees) actions. Why? Because then (like with Lebanon) they would be responsible for what goes on behind the borders. It’s sort of a 'legal loophole' that Muslim nations are using the world over when engaged in conflict with.....well.....everyone else.

Uh, how can any Arab state "take responsibility" for people in an area under Israel's occupation?

5. The only reason why Israel still controls the west bank TODAY is because if they leave it's obvious to EVERYONE what will ensue...it happened in gaza when they left. and if and when it happens in the west bank and you can expect a similar magnitude of life lost.

What's obvious is that Gaza and the West Bank will be nests of terrorism without a national government to police it.

So what are Israel's choices here? Control gaza and the west bank to ensure Israelis their safety? Annex both completely and hope for the best (even when they will get the worst) ? Give in to historically uncompromising Arabs, and concede even more in the hopes for peace? If it were "Canada" instead of Israel in that situation what would you have them do?

Canada is still working out treaties with the many native bands within itself, as opposed to deporting them out into another country or settling non-natives on lands reserved for natives.

I've already outlined what I'd hope Israel would do. But reversing the flow of squatters into the West Bank is the most important if they want peace.

6. Legally Israel can have the entire region west of Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea.

Horsecrap, there isn't a political body on the planet (including Israel) that recognizes such nonsense.

It could expel/exile all the Arabs from the refugee camps, the way all the Muslim nations expelled Jews, Christians, Zorastrans, etc..

Yes, behave like theocratic tyrannies instead of a modern democracy, that will help plenty.

You keep implying that Israel is the bad guy in this equation, yet throughout the 60+ years it has only sought for peaceful coexistence...

Until Israel initiated the settler movement in the 1980s, I'd agree completely. I don't see Israel as the bad guy, I see Israel as the good guy who screwed up.

...absorbing the religious extremism of it's neighbors while affording full citizenship to people of various faiths as I pointed out earlier and not penalizing them for the actions of their kin.

They did that because it's the right thing to do and their legal obligation.

All the Arabs have been asked to do throughout this conflict is to maintain secure borders with Israel, which none are willing to comply with. If it's not Iraq, its Lebanon, if its not Lebanon, its Syria, if not Syria, the refugees, or Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, now it's Iran, etc....

None? Uh, Israel has treaties with Jordan and Egypt.

When has Israel ever encroached on Iran/Iraq/S.Arabia's territory, and any of the other Muslim countries she doesn't share a border with?

Settlers in the West Bank and Gaza come to mind...

Border disputes can arise with neighbors I get that, but countries half a world away ? so what’s their beef apart from the fact that Israel is not a Muslim nation ?

You know the answer: grandstanding and diversion.

And i stick to my view that if the Arabs enjoying Israeli citizenship cannot take an oath to Israel, they need not be burdened with Israeli citizenship.

Whatever, it has nothing to do with peace in the Holy Land.

Any country which provides citizenship to people requires them to take an oath and fulfill some basic obligations to the country accepting them as an equal member of society, you are not forced to take the oath, but by refusing to do so you also forfeit citizenship, and i think that should be a prerequisite for anyone Jews/Christian/Muslim who wants or has Israeli citizenship. In fact I think it's shameful and racist for Israel to discriminate its Muslim population (20%) by not endowing on them the same responsibilities and duties it does on it's other citizens.

I've lived in Canada my entire life, and I have never been required to utter an oath to legally bind my citizenship. The same is true of most countries. Only new immigrants utter oaths of citizenship. (School kids sometimes do it, but it's not legally binding in any way.) As for "racist and shameful" discrimination, many nations give exemption to religious minorities in regards to military service. As a liberal-tarian, I regard conscription as indentured servitude and thus unconstitutional, so expecting my agreement here is pointless.

I suggest your rebuttal have some legal dimension to it...

Why, your points have nothing "legal" about them. On the contrary, your "legal arguments" are a farce.

... cause if all you are going on is personal opinion, and a short term view of the conflict you cannot expect anyone to take you seriously, except for other people with short-term-views of this conflict and the muslims/arabs who will patronize you because of your support regardless of the legality/morality.

My views about the two-state solution are the international norm, held by the UN and the USA and the nation of Israel itself. Only fringe radicals like yourself and Big Mac and the West Bank squatters think otherwise. And no international body holds that Palestinians are "a non-people" and that Israel is legal entitled to the entire region you claim. It is your views that "you cannot expect anyone to take seriously."

Muslims/Arabs also tend to grab at anything when trying to vilify Jews/Christians/Hindus/Buddhists/etc....especially when it involved territorial disputes.

Gee, another helpful overgeneralization.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

3. The refugee problem is a direct result of the Arab policy to wage war for territorial expansion, yet they are allowed to wipe their hand clean (except for the funds and arsenal supplied to fight against Israel of course), and expect Israel to maintain some form of security and standard there

Isn't that exactly what the British did too, with their "mandate?"

6. Legally Israel can have the entire region west of Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea.

Every side of every argument is going to cling to their historical feelings of entitlement from the _height_ of their good fortune. The conquering British army may have declared a "legal" entitlement to Israel, but in doing so they set a de facto precedent that whoever has the biggest guns gets to hand out legal entitlements over the region (and not even have to stick around to enforce them). By that standard, Israel's Arab neighbors are just trying to follow Britain's lead, so they can "legally" entitle someone else to that land instead.

Were you blustering about "legal" entitlements during the "illegal" invasion of Iraq 6 years ago? I'm guessing no, you probably thought the people doing that looked pretty desperate for something to "prove" them right. That's what your post looks like now.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Big Mac and nonhuman are quite easily impressed, it seems.
I'm pretty closed-minded about treating people like cattle and shipping them to another country to satisfy rabid zealots.
The British Mandate (of Palestine, words you forgot) was the document that guided British rule, not Israeli independence. That was the 1967 establishment of Israel and Palestine as separate states. The Mandate only established British goals, but regardless of its contents, its relevance vanished when British rule ended.
The Palestinians lived there too.

Why are you obsessed with the name "Palestine". it's just a name, get over it. ok, it was the "British Mandate of Pslestine", if the Jewss chose that name for their country in 1947, the Arabs would have chosen something else. it's an inconsequential name, and doesnt change the dynamics of the agreements.

As far as people being treated like cattle and shipping them to another country....well im glad you agree with me on that, i've always spoken out against the Muslim nations which discriminate and force religious minorities to either convert or leave, like they did with Christians/Jews/Zorostrans. Although im not certain how you single out Israel for this condemnation since they have a thriving 20% of citizens who are Israeli citizens, compare that to the trends of Christian/Jews/other populations in Muslim countries which have seen constant declines.

The displacement of people when states are formed is unfortunate, but to claim that they are all 'forced out' is pure vilification imo. In the case of India/Pakistan(Hindu/Muslim)... most left willingly, and im sure that that was the case when Israel accepted the U.N. partition plan and the Arabs did not(because they wanted it all under muslim rule).

Accepting that partition, guaranteed both sides nation/state/country status on the world stage.... when i speak of "Legal" dimensions, lets examine that decision in some depth.
-A governing body(British), relinquish control.
-Two separate entities lay claim (Jews/Muslims)
-The U.N. divides up the territory.
-The Jews accept the partition and thus legally obtain statehood.
-The Muslim-side reject it(thus giving up national status) in the hopes of (with the support of their neighboring Muslim brethren) obtaining (illegally) control of the territories entire.
-After the initial disputes.... a nation of Israel emerges, the mostly Muslim side goes under the control of Jordan and Egypt.
-Neither Jordan nor Egypt nor Syria nor Egypt now Lebanon(all muslim nations at this point in time) take responsibility for cross border conflicts and constant security breaches.
-Inorder to quell the BS from the Arab side, Israel takes control of the West Bank and Gaza, an expensive and imo undesirable(from the Israeli perspective) proposition to maintain security for it's citizens(irrespective of faith). Had the Arabs maintained secure borders with a sovereign country this wouldn't be an issue, but alas...this tale has been sung in many different languages from Chechnya to Kashmir to the Philippines to Indonesia to Malaysia to Cyprus, etc....all with one common element.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You can't blame the Arab nations for wanting control over land they once controlled, prior to the British colonization.
Those "compromises made at the time" are the founding terms of the nation of Israel. When you sign on the dotted line, you don't get to cross your fingers behind your back.

Why not ? The Jews at that time consolidated their area under one flag, didn't encroach on any existing nation/state/country and legally gained independence through UN approval. The Arabs in the rest of the mandate and some who were living inside the then territory of Israel could have accepted the partition plan and had a state as a well. but their rejection of having a Non-muslim state in such proximity was unacceptable (blatantly racist, but lets not go there). I'm not sure what you mean by 'cross your fingers behind your back', but i assume you are aware that Israel was attacked the day after it's nationhood was ratified, right ? How would you have any nation under the sun react ? You mention Egypt and Jordan with regard to pace treaties, did you read up on the topics i mentioned earlier regarding the evens that transcribed in 1973 ? All that was required(sarcasm) to get the Egyptians to talk, was to take the Egyptian third Army hostage. And Israel gave back everything to get the Egyptians to sign peace treaties.... makes you wonder, had the Egyptians/Jordanians/etc signed peace treaties to begin with.. all that 'cattle' would have still been alive today.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

What a soup of nonsense. I never mentioned refugees, and I don't consider them refugees, so I'm not asking for anything "both ways."

If *you* dont qualify them as refugees ? what do you qualify them as ? THEY(Arabs) keep claiming to be in the biggest refugee camps in the world.
So whose qualification should we accept for these argument ? yours or theirs ? Would you like different sets of negotiations to go with that as well ? Maybe, and this is just my suggestion, you and the Arabs/Palestinians need to agree upon what status they fall under and then accordingly formulate a strategy for peace. Cause if they are not refugees, i personally don't see why they need so much aid from Israel and the West.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Uh, how can any Arab state "take responsibility" for people in an area under Israel's occupation?
What's obvious is that Gaza and the West Bank will be nests of terrorism without a national government to police it.

Prior to Israel taking control of the areas(i think they were under Jordan and Egypt), what was happening ? And now, if like with Gaza, Israel withdraws from the West Bank, who takes responsibility ? Who is taking responsibility for those rockets fired from Gaza into Israel after Israel pulled out ? Is Egypt ? No (despite the weapons being smuggled in from their territory). So what would you suggest Israel do ? let the Arabs from all around continue to fire into Israel ? How would you like your government to respond in such a scenario ? Knowing your logic, if and when your government responds to such provocations you would proceed to chastise them(after all is safe of course) for doing so.

"Palestinian Government"... yea. And let me guess it's upto the Israeli's to provide them with that, right ? the way the Israelis were provided a government as well.... oh wait...

You see, thats what i mean by taking responsibility.... their "government" is incapable of taking responsibility, and their attitude is to blame Israel. Israel obviously doesnt want to govern them, and is only looking to quell attacks on Israelis. 60 years enough to form an accountable government ? Like i said post WWII scored of other nations did it. Is it our fault or the Israeli's fault if the Arabs are incapable or unwilling to do so ? All that concerns Israel with those two pieces of land is Israeli security, thats all. So all the Arabs need do is stop with all the shooting.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Canada is still working out treaties with the many native bands within itself, as opposed to deporting them out into another country or settling non-natives on lands reserved for natives.

'Deporting' would be if Israel was expelling them..... much like what the Muslim nations did to their Jewish populations(amounting to roughly the same number of Palestinians at that time). Since the Palestinians, of whom many *choose* to leave for the protection of their Muslim brothers who would fight for them, how exactly did Israel 'deport' them ? If in fact they were 'deported' as you claim, that would mean they are not on their own land now, and so begs the questions.... if they are not on their own land, whose land are they on, and whose land is being 'occupied' ?

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I've already outlined what I'd hope Israel would do. But reversing the flow of squatters into the West Bank is the most important if they want peace. Horsecrap, there isn't a political body on the planet (including Israel) that recognizes such nonsense.

And i've outlined mine. Egypt takes responsibility and control of Gaza. Jordan of the Westbank. No change in territory by either side. And as far as Israel having claim to everything west of Jordan.... luckily for the Arabs, the Israelis were more compromising(than me).

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Yes, behave like theocratic tyrannies instead of a modern democracy, that will help plenty.

So you can belittle/ignore those 'theocratic tyrannies' when the people suffering anguish are Jews/Christians/Zorastrans/other, and when those people try and maintain some form of security due to unrelenting(continuing) aggression, you choose to speak out ?

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Until Israel initiated the settler movement in the 1980s, I'd agree completely. I don't see Israel as the bad guy, I see Israel as the good guy who screwed up.

If the Arabs are refusing to make peace(personally, i think they dont want to because they love the attention from ppl like you), why should anyone else wait ? In fact i think it's the Settler movement that will pressure the Arabs to finally do something they have been opposed to for 60 years..... make peace.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

They did that because it's the right thing to do and their legal obligation.

Once again, no signature on the dotted line.... no legal obligation imo.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

None? Uh, Israel has treaties with Jordan and Egypt.

Yes and when i researched the events that lead to those treaties and the terms of those treaties, i only garnered a greater respect for Israel. For example, with regard to Egypt.... it was only when Egypt lost the Yom Kippur war(initiated by the Egyptians), the Israelis had the Egyptian 3rd army surrounded ,were 60miles from Cairo, and the Egyptian forces in total disarray that they agreed to negotiate(something they and the other Arabs refused to do before that point).
And what were the terms ? Israel would have a peace treaty with a neighboring muslim nation, something it was willing to do from day 1, meaning that Egypt would honor Israel's borders. And Israel would relinquish control of Sinai (something Israel didn't have in 1947.... ie no leverage to get the Arabs to negotiate)

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Settlers in the West Bank and Gaza come to mind...

In Gaza ? last i checked Israel copletely pulled out of Gaza and forcefully removed the settlers.....so as far as gaza is concerned Israel met all obligations, and the Arabs in that territory failed to meet their obligation....security. Thus, once again, legally breaking down the terms of that treaty, and opening up the possibility of invasion imo. I think Israel should have kept a chunk of Gaza after the latest operations, which would have served as a warning to those thinking of continuing to launch rockets, and those claiming to control the territory. But alas, Israel pulled out completely.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You know the answer: grandstanding and diversion.

Whatever, it has nothing to do with peace in the Holy Land.

So if another Muslim invasion of Israel is staged, you think the Arabs in Israel will support the country which has protected them ? If not, should they be allowed to 'enjoy' Israeli citizenship ? Mind you, said arabs in israel are quite outspoken regarding their hatred of the Jewish state, and i wouldnt trust them tofight for Israel if a war broke out, in fact i would think of them as a liability/security concern.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I've lived in Canada my entire life, and I have never been required to utter an oath to legally bind my citizenship. The same is true of most countries. Only new immigrants utter oaths of citizenship. (School kids sometimes do it, but it's not legally binding in any way.) As for "racist and shameful" discrimination, many nations give exemption to religious minorities in regards to military service. As a liberal-tarian, I regard conscription as indentured servitude and thus unconstitutional, so expecting my agreement here is pointless.

Good for you i guess. But given the circumstances, regarding the support of Arab Israelis, i think, in order to maintain 'peace in the Holy Land', they should. if they are incapable of doing so, they should not be entitled to citizenship. Also, as far as religious minorities not being required to serve, i think thats not a 'standard'/'expectation' and is upto the country's discretion.... so Canada might not expect religious minorities to serve, but i see no reason why Israel should do the same.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Why, your points have nothing "legal" about them. On the contrary, your "legal arguments" are a farce.
My views about the two-state solution are the international norm, held by the UN and the USA and the nation of Israel itself. Only fringe radicals like yourself and Big Mac and the West Bank squatters think otherwise. And no international body holds that Palestinians are "a non-people" and that Israel is legal entitled to the entire region you claim. It is your views that "you cannot expect anyone to take seriously."

I'm not a fringe radical at all, and i dont think BigMac is either. As far as 'legality'...... here we have Israel, accepting the U.N. partition plan and forming a state legally, and then you have the Arabs refusing it, and mounting wars constantly to try to annihilate a legal state.... that is, imo...'illegal'. I also support enforcing the 'law', so if for example the Lebaneses cannot(or will not) control Hiz on their side of the border, i support Israel launching campaigns to quell those illegal attacks (as no one else, not the US, not the UN, nor Canada) did anything to stop it.

I never suggested they are a "non-people" I think they are a 'people' as well...just not a nation/country/state (i hope you know the difference, if not, im not sure why im having this discussion with you). I fully support a 2 state solution, and i know Israel will sign on the dotted line to a peace agreement on the current frontiers, as they were wiling to do so before 1967. The problem unfortunately is that the Arabs will not accept the current borders, they didnt accept it in 1947, nor did they accept it prior to 1967, nor when they were handed a state twice and refused it. So who here, is *really* opposed to the 'two state' solution ?(Ive presented you with at least 3-4 times when Israel was willing to withdraw completely and accept an Arab State). Now show me one instance in the history of Israel when the Arabs were willing to sign peace treaties on the existing frontiers(ie without demanding more).

About the Palestinians "They have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity" - Abba Eban

And that's not Israel's or anyone else's fault, imo.

I'm all for a two state solution and i've always been. My disappointment with the inability of Arabs to maintain secure borders and sign peace treaties doesn't mean im opposed to them(finally) taking responsibility of what goes on on their side of the border. Where Israel has always wanted to be recognized by it's neighbors(which it recognizes anyway), the Arabs have always been opposed to recognizing a jewish State and resorted to war (something i am opposed to).

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Gee, another helpful overgeneralization.

Find me a Muslim controlled news outlet that published opposition to the illegal firing of missiles from Gaza. As a person who lived in the mid east, i can tell you that even the name "Israel" was not mentioned in news stories. That BS about organ harvesting and Joos eating children on the other hand always made it onto the evening news.

All it takes is an ill-informed and biased reporter from anywhere to say that Israel is "stealing" water, and as far as the Arabs are concerned it's a fact...ignoring the agreements made and the fact that Israel was supplying more water than legally obligated to.

So as far as my 'overgeneralization'....i will gladly relent my 'overly general' statement, when anyone produces a single example of published news from the Muslim world which criticizes the illegal firing of rockets, or the terrorist attacks targeting civilians inside Israel, or the illegal supply or ammunition to militias who are bent on Israel's destruction. I've looked and could not find a single one, i gave up, but by all means, i encourage you to keep searching, as i am truely hopeful that not all of them are that racist.

Thats a long post, with heaps or questions....here are my questions:
1. When have the Arabs offered/accepted peace on existing frontiers ?
2. When have the Arabs fulfilled their obligations to the treaties they have signed with regard to Israel ?
3. When has Israel NOT fulfilled the obligations it had agreed to ?
4. Is it the Israelis or Palestinians(Gaza/WestBank) who's stated goal as a "people" to destroy the other ?
5. Which side refused the partition plan ? Which side refused a state on multiple occasions ?
6. Why is it Israel's duty to, at her expense, see to the welfare of a people bent on her destruction ?
7. Regarding my "overly general" statements... please provide proof of the contrary, and i will relent my statement.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Why are you obsessed with the name "Palestine". it's just a name, get over it.

I use the name the entire world uses, expect for some crazies.

As far as people being treated like cattle and shipping them to another country....well im glad you agree with me on that, i've always spoken out against the Muslim nations which discriminate and force religious minorities to either convert or leave, like they did with Christians/Jews/Zorostrans. Although im not certain how you single out Israel for this condemnation since they have a thriving 20% of citizens who are Israeli citizens, compare that to the trends of Christian/Jews/other populations in Muslim countries which have seen constant declines.

I do condemn those persecutions, but that's not the subject of this thread.

If *you* dont qualify them as refugees ? what do you qualify them as ? THEY(Arabs) keep claiming to be in the biggest refugee camps in the world.
So whose qualification should we accept for these argument ? yours or theirs ? Would you like different sets of negotiations to go with that as well ? Maybe, and this is just my suggestion, you and the Arabs/Palestinians need to agree upon what status they fall under and then accordingly formulate a strategy for peace. Cause if they are not refugees, i personally don't see why they need so much aid from Israel and the West.

You fail to see that "the Arabs" are not a monolithic entity. The Palestinians generally don't see themselves aa refugees, but surrounding Arabs nations do (or did, not sure how Egypt or Jordan sees them now.)

"Palestinian Government"... yea. And let me guess it's upto the Israeli's to provide them with that, right ? the way the Israelis were provided a government as well.... oh wait...

Actually, yes. The Israeli's were preparing for decades to form a government. The Palestinians weren't; some were expecting Jordan or Egypt to reassume control of the area, some were hoping for statehood. If Israel is committed to a two-state solution, that means assisting the establishment of a Palestinian gov't thru the gradual withdrawal of Israel authority.

You see, thats what i mean by taking responsibility.... their "government" is incapable of taking responsibility, and their attitude is to blame Israel. Israel obviously doesnt want to govern them, and is only looking to quell attacks on Israelis. 60 years enough to form an accountable government ? Like i said post WWII scored of other nations did it. Is it our fault or the Israeli's fault if the Arabs are incapable or unwilling to do so ? All that concerns Israel with those two pieces of land is Israeli security, thats all. So all the Arabs need do is stop with all the shooting.

The shooting isn't gonna stop without a Palestinian gov't that can enforce the ceasefire.

And i've outlined mine. Egypt takes responsibility and control of Gaza. Jordan of the Westbank. No change in territory by either side. And as far as Israel having claim to everything west of Jordan.... luckily for the Arabs, the Israelis were more compromising(than me).

I think that's a great solution. Really. Both the Egyptians and Jordanians have good relations with Israel, and have the power to enforce a ceasefire. However, that's not what the Palestinians want, it's not what Israel has agreed to, and it's not the international consensus. I doubt either Egypt or Jordan want those areas anymore.

So you can belittle/ignore those 'theocratic tyrannies' when the people suffering anguish are Jews/Christians/Zorastrans/other, and when those people try and maintain some form of security due to unrelenting(continuing) aggression, you choose to speak out ?

I don't belittle any such thing.

If the Arabs are refusing to make peace(personally, i think they dont want to because they love the attention from ppl like you), why should anyone else wait ?

I very much doubt the Arab world gives a crap about my opinion.

In fact i think it's the Settler movement that will pressure the Arabs to finally do something they have been opposed to for 60 years..... make peace.

Ridiculous. Do you read the news? Abbas is giving up politics because the Israeli side is pointlessly aggravating the settler issue.

In Gaza ? last i checked Israel copletely pulled out of Gaza and forcefully removed the settlers.....so as far as gaza is concerned Israel met all obligations, and the Arabs in that territory failed to meet their obligation....security. Thus, once again, legally breaking down the terms of that treaty, and opening up the possibility of invasion imo. I think Israel should have kept a chunk of Gaza after the latest operations, which would have served as a warning to those thinking of continuing to launch rockets, and those claiming to control the territory. But alas, Israel pulled out completely.

Israel left Gaza in the hands of a gang, not a government. At least the settlers were evicted, as they should have been. Now similar steps are needed in the West Bank.

So if another Muslim invasion of Israel is staged, you think the Arabs in Israel will support the country which has protected them ? If not, should they be allowed to 'enjoy' Israeli citizenship ? Mind you, said arabs in israel are quite outspoken regarding their hatred of the Jewish state, and i wouldnt trust them tofight for Israel if a war broke out, in fact i would think of them as a liability/security concern.

This issue is pointless. I frankly don't care about such an internal issue, and how Israel manages it's own people doesn't bother me.

I'm not a fringe radical at all, and i dont think BigMac is either. As far as 'legality'...... here we have Israel, accepting the U.N. partition plan and forming a state legally, and then you have the Arabs refusing it, and mounting wars constantly to try to annihilate a legal state.... that is, imo...'illegal'.

This is fascinating in a history class, but irrelevant today. And the war between Israel and the surrounding nations was perfectly legal as any other war. The subsequent terrorism, certainly not.

I also support enforcing the 'law', so if for example the Lebaneses cannot(or will not) control Hiz on their side of the border, i support Israel launching campaigns to quell those illegal attacks (as no one else, not the US, not the UN, nor Canada) did anything to stop it.

Canada supported the Israeli side, actually. And I personally don't fault the Israeli gov't for their actions either.

I never suggested they are a "non-people" I think they are a 'people' as well...just not a nation/country/state (i hope you know the difference, if not, im not sure why im having this discussion with you). I fully support a 2 state solution, and i know Israel will sign on the dotted line to a peace agreement on the current frontiers, as they were wiling to do so before 1967. The problem unfortunately is that the Arabs will not accept the current borders, they didnt accept it in 1947, nor did they accept it prior to 1967, nor when they were handed a state twice and refused it.

Here we go with "the Arabs" again. The present opinion of the surrounding Arab states in the past or now is irrelevant to the two-state solution today. As for "rejecting a state twice," the Palestinian Authority rejected the agreements because they rejected some of the terms. Today, they are still rejecting Israel's terms regarding the settlers, because those terms are simply unacceptable.

So who here, is *really* opposed to the 'two state' solution ?(Ive presented you with at least 3-4 times when Israel was willing to withdraw completely and accept an Arab State). Now show me one instance in the history of Israel when the Arabs were willing to sign peace treaties on the existing frontiers(ie without demanding more).

It is Israel that is demanding more, thru the support of continued settler expansion.

Find me a Muslim controlled news outlet that published opposition to the illegal firing of missiles from Gaza. As a person who lived in the mid east, i can tell you that even the name "Israel" was not mentioned in news stories. That BS about organ harvesting and Joos eating children on the other hand always made it onto the evening news.

I have serious doubts about organ harvesting stories and water agreements too. But don't bother looking for unbiased press from Arab news, because they are all state owned. Would you trust the state-owned press of a theocracy?

So as far as my 'overgeneralization'....i will gladly relent my 'overly general' statement, when anyone produces a single example of published news from the Muslim world which criticizes the illegal firing of rockets, or the terrorist attacks targeting civilians inside Israel, or the illegal supply or ammunition to militias who are bent on Israel's destruction. I've looked and could not find a single one, i gave up, but by all means, i encourage you to keep searching, as i am truely hopeful that not all of them are that racist.

State-owned news. Just ignore it.

1. When have the Arabs offered/accepted peace on existing frontiers ?
They will when the terms are right.

2. When have the Arabs fulfilled their obligations to the treaties they have signed with regard to Israel?
Who are we talking about? The Egyptians and Jordanians are doing great. I'm pretty sure there aren't any Lebanese and Syrian treaties with Israel, and even if there are, we know the Syrians are a terrorist-exporting nation and shouldn't expect much else.

3. When has Israel NOT fulfilled the obligations it had agreed to?
As far as I'm aware, never. Israel is a good nation. They gotta quit coddling the squatters, though.

4. Is it the Israelis or Palestinians(Gaza/WestBank) who's stated goal as a "people" to destroy the other?
Both the Israeli state and the Palestinian Authority have the stated goal of a two-state solution. Many, many fringe groups within both sides have the entire Holy Land as their side's exclusive domain.

5. Which side refused the partition plan ? Which side refused a state on multiple occasions ?
The side that was getting screwed in the terms.

6. Why is it Israel's duty to, at her expense, see to the welfare of a people bent on her destruction ?
Because not all or even the majority of those people are culpable.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

1. When have the Arabs offered/accepted peace on existing frontiers ?
They will when the terms are right.

Thats the whole point of this conflict !!! when have the terms ever been "right" ? as far as i can see the only "terms" the Arabs are willing to accept is total Muslim control of the region. They keep clamoring on about 1967 borders...well why wernt they willing to make peace in 1966 then ? and before that why didnt they accept the Partition plan in 1947 ? every time a designation is set it's never been good enough...that's unacceptable, and imo a signal that peae isnt the goal.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

2. When have the Arabs fulfilled their obligations to the treaties they have signed with regard to Israel?
Who are we talking about? The Egyptians and Jordanians are doing great. I'm pretty sure there aren't any Lebanese and Syrian treaties with Israel, and even if there are, we know the Syrians are a terrorist-exporting nation and shouldn't expect much else.

The Arabs i am referring to are the Palestinians. As far as Egypt and Jordan.... it's a cold peace, but thats better than no peace at all. Egypt could do a lot more to prevent arms for getting into Gaza for example, that is assuming the desire to do so existed, cause after all, it would be a non-muslim state benefiting if they did.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

3. When has Israel NOT fulfilled the obligations it had agreed to?
As far as I'm aware, never. Israel is a good nation. They gotta quit coddling the squatters, though.

As far as i'm concerned, whatever Israel reaped from the 1967 war which was a direct consequence of Arab aggression is Israel's that includes all the land and whichever arab villages it chooses to annex. it had no moral/legal obligation to surrender any of those assets. As far as the "squatters" if the state sanctions them, they are 100% legal.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

4. Is it the Israelis or Palestinians(Gaza/WestBank) who's stated goal as a "people" to destroy the other?
Both the Israeli state and the Palestinian Authority have the stated goal of a two-state solution. Many, many fringe groups within both sides have the entire Holy Land as their side's exclusive domain.

Hammas ("elected representative") after Israel withdrew completely. That's another treaty nullified imo, and Israel should take a nice big bite out of Gaza for Gazans/Hammas violating the terms of the withdrawal imo.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

5. Which side refused the partition plan ? Which side refused a state on multiple occasions ?
The side that was getting screwed in the terms.

The Arabs were getting screwed ? have you seen the proposed Maps before the U.N. partition plan ? Do you notice which side got a lot less and accepted it anyway ? and which side wasnt willing to compromise at all(ie want war) ?The Arabs got the entire area of Trans Jordan and a lot of the west bank. and they were getting raw deal ? please explain.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

6. Why is it Israel's duty to, at her expense, see to the welfare of a people bent on her destruction ?
Because not all or even the majority of those people are culpable.

[/QUOTE]

Then have those who are culpable(The Arab state, who now conveniently sit on the side lines and wipe their hands clean of any responsibility) see to their welfare, not Israel, as she was not the aggressor only the victor. And i hold every Gazan culpable for their present state......for empowering Hammas even after Israel withdrew and for violating their agreements and for their incursions and provocations. You seem to assume that the those culpable are separate from the general populous...please not that without the support of the populous those few would not be in positions to cause such damage for so long.

Arabs keep begging for Israeli land and only then will they attempt to make peace. if it's peace they want, why dont they give up a chunk of land the way Israel did with Egypt and Jordan? If there ever was a sign from the side that wants peace in this conflict that was it. what has been their reward ? rockets and suicide bombers ? if land is the currency and peace is the product i say the Israelis keep getting screwed by the Arabs.