[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

Well, I'd certainly never go this far. And he's partly redeemed himself since.

How? Via his blatant anti-semetism or his meddling in matters beyond his abilities?

In the article you quote, he is certainly completely correct:
Do you disagree with this?!

Yes. Furthermore, Carter was a DISASTER. Unless your argument is "it takes one to know one", he's not one to talk. That's what the "irony" i mentioned was about

t is certainly in line with what most people say who have worked with or under Cheney. And his public record, of dramatic failure after failure after failure, strongly supports that.

Your opinion is noted.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Yes. Furthermore, Carter was a DISASTER. Unless your argument is "it takes one to know one", he's not one to talk. That's what the "irony" i mentioned was about.

I agree with this principle. People like ebuddy who support the Iraq war then dare to pretend to be fiscally responsible in other threads---ridiculous. But Carter's been out of office for 26 years. And he's been doing good stuff lately: link. Twenty years from now, ten years after we finally get out of the Iraq quagmire, I'll have no problem taking ebuddy seriously as long as he has changed his "let's blow our money up" tune. Same for Carter.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How do the occupied territories help them, at all? If it was just about not absorbing the six day war, they wouldn't still be holding these territories after 40 years. Forty years of occupation is stubborn defiance. Isarael can't afford to have a weakness like stubborn defiance.

Because they are outnumbered by so huge an amount. If they don't push for peace at every opportunity, they face war. Either a war of attrition (which heavily favors numbers), or a conventional full-scale war (which they might technically win, but only by laying waste to the whole region. You don't host a war if you can avoid it).

I've gone over it all night and I just find this analysis baffling.

If they don't push for peace they face war? With who? They're at peace with Egypt. The only thing between them and peace with Syria is dickering about water rights. Lebanon is a wreck. Jordan hasn't cared a flying fig for 20 some years.

Israel's stubborn defiance has apparently led everyone concerned to acquiesce to their (reasonable) demands.

Except for the Palestinians. Israel can't win a war of attrition against them?

Not that that seems to be their plan, anyways.

[Chongo]

WorldNetDaily: What is a Palestinian?

Ever since I wrote a column last October called "Myths of the Middle East," readers from around the world have asked me what is meant by the term "Palestinian."

The simple answer is that it means whatever Yasser Arafat wants it to mean.

Arafat himself was born in Egypt. He later moved to Jerusalem. Indeed, most of the Arabs living within the borders of Israel today have come from some other Arab country at some time in their life.

For instance, just since the beginning of the Oslo Accords, more than 400,000 Arabs have entered the West Bank or Gaza. They have come from Jordan, Egypt and, indirectly, from every other Arab country you can name.

WorldNetDaily: Myths of the Middle East

The truth is that Palestine is no more real than Never-Never Land. The first time the name was used was in 70 A.D. when the Romans committed genocide against the Jews, smashed the Temple and declared the land of Israel would be no more. From then on, the Romans promised, it would be known as Palestine. The name was derived from the Philistines, a Goliathian people conquered by the Jews centuries earlier. It was a way for the Romans to add insult to injury. They also tried to change the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, but that had even less staying power.

Palestine has never existed -- before or since -- as an autonomous entity. It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their homeland.

There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

If they don't push for peace they face war? With who? They're at peace with Egypt. The only thing between them and peace with Syria is dickering about water rights. Lebanon is a wreck. Jordan hasn't cared a flying fig for 20 some years.

Israel's stubborn defiance has apparently led everyone concerned to acquiesce to their (reasonable) demands.

I'd like to believe your claim that Israel is no longer threatened by its neighbors, but on the other hand I seem to remember they broke into open warfare with Lebanon a few years ago. Actions speak louder than words.

Maybe you're right, and that was just a fluke in an otherwise peaceful region, or maybe they're all just sending their soldiers and arms in under the banner of the various terrorist groups within Israel's "borders." I mean, Saudia Arabia sure doesn't claim to be hostile to the US, but if in fact they were then they managed a more successful attack on us than any other power since 1812.

Except for the Palestinians. Israel can't win a war of attrition against them?

Not if the Palestinians are constantly replentished from all over the Arab world. Like the "insurgents" are in Iraq. Chongo just pointed out that a "Palestinian" is nothing more than someone who claims to be one. It sure would be cheaper for Jordan or Syria or Lebanon or Egypt to put all their support into Palestinians than to confront Israel directly (and in fact isn't that exactly how the war got triggered 2 years ago?). Plausible deniability avoids them a lot of collateral damage on their own land.

[BadKosh]

Doesn't this just say it all???


"Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, who retired in 2006 after being replaced in Iraq after the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, blamed the Bush administration for a “catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan”


I guess when you screw up, aren't paying attention to your troops activities, and do a lousy job overall you get replaced and are forced to retire. No bitterness here....nope...none at all.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Yeah, general sanchez, or general betray-ez? You go get 'em, badkosh

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'd like to believe your claim that Israel is no longer threatened by its neighbors, but on the other hand I seem to remember they broke into open warfare with Lebanon a few years ago. Actions speak louder than words.

They (meaning it's Israel who chose to make it open warfare) is the key term here. A couple of soldiers got captured and Israel proceeded to flatten half the country.

This has been (for better or worse, mostly worse) Israel's MO with Lebanon for 25 years. Lebanon's weak (or non existent) government can't keep extremists from getting uppity, and Israel smashes Lebanon to a bloody pulp in retaliation. I heartily disapprove of the policy, but it's not a policy of weakness or desperation on Israel's behalf.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Maybe you're right, and that was just a fluke in an otherwise peaceful region, or maybe they're all just sending their soldiers and arms in under the banner of the various terrorist groups within Israel's "borders." I mean, Saudia Arabia sure doesn't claim to be hostile to the US, but if in fact they were then they managed a more successful attack on us than any other power since 1812.

Not if the Palestinians are constantly replentished from all over the Arab world. Like the "insurgents" are in Iraq. Chongo just pointed out that a "Palestinian" is nothing more than someone who claims to be one. It sure would be cheaper for Jordan or Syria or Lebanon or Egypt to put all their support into Palestinians than to confront Israel directly (and in fact isn't that exactly how the war got triggered 2 years ago?). Plausible deniability avoids them a lot of collateral damage on their own land.

I don't think the region is peaceful, but a stable regional government hasn't decided to try and drop the hammer on Israel for 35 years. Is this because Israel has been suing for peace all this time, or have they been conditioned to realize this is a very bad idea?

As for the Palestinians, and the war of attrition... let's be honest, Palestinians spend ten times the effort killing each other than they do killing Israelis. If they can ever get things under enough control to be a focused threat, they're going to think twice about losing that focus by being on the wrong end of an 105mm howitzer.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

it's not a policy of weakness or desperation on Israel's behalf.

I have no idea what your point is. I'm so lost I don't even know where to start asking. Care to reiterate?

I don't think the region is peaceful, but a stable regional government hasn't decided to try and drop the hammer on Israel for 35 years.

Not via conventional warfare. Maybe it's because they lost their nerve, or maybe it's just because they realized doing it through the guise of the Palestinians was much cheaper and safer for themselves. That certainly seems to be the worldwide trend among enemies of nuclear countries with conventionally overpowering militaries, even the US during the coldwar.

As for the Palestinians, and the war of attrition... let's be honest, Palestinians spend ten times the effort killing each other than they do killing Israelis. If they can ever get things under enough control to be a focused threat, they're going to think twice about losing that focus by being on the wrong end of an 105mm howitzer.

I have 2 things to say about that. First, they're still killing Israelis. I think that's bad. If Israel can clean up their act enough (in my eyes all they need is to give up the occupied territories), the world community might make the Palestinians their next "project." Second, don't you think that giving the Palestinians a home land to govern would be a big push in the direction you just described: getting things under enough control to be focused? It's a classic time-tested strategy: give them something to lose, and they'll stop fighting like they have nothing to lose.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I have no idea what your point is. I'm so lost I don't even know where to start asking. Care to reiterate?

Me: Israel is not threatened by neighbors.
You: Open warfare with Lebanon.
Me: Not open warfare with Lebanon. Open warfare with extremists the Lebanese are too weak to stop. Lebanon gets crushed like a tin-can in the process.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Not via conventional warfare. Maybe it's because they lost their nerve, or maybe it's just because they realized doing it through the guise of the Palestinians was much cheaper and safer for themselves. That certainly seems to be the worldwide trend among enemies of nuclear countries with conventionally overpowering militaries, even the US during the coldwar.

Absolutely. Israel is an old hand at dealing with this however.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I have 2 things to say about that. First, they're still killing Israelis. I think that's bad. If Israel can clean up their act enough (in my eyes all they need is to give up the occupied territories), the world community might make the Palestinians their next "project." Second, don't you think that giving the Palestinians a home land to govern would be a big push in the direction you just described: getting things under enough control to be focused? It's a classic time-tested strategy: give them something to lose, and they'll stop fighting like they have nothing to lose.

Total agreement here. At least a few years ago, this was the majority opinion in Israel as well. I think the only difference of opinion we have on this is with regards to Israel's glacial pace.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Me: Israel is not threatened by neighbors.
You: Open warfare with Lebanon.
Me: Not open warfare with Lebanon. Open warfare with extremists the Lebanese are too weak to stop. Lebanon gets crushed like a tin-can in the process.

So I guess you're saying that since Israel "started it," it's not a big problem?

My whole point in this thread has been that it doesn't matter who started it. Whether it was the official Lebanese government or the terrorist de facto leaders who took action, it doesn't matter. Whether the powers that be in Lebanon decided to start by launching missiles or by formally declaring war or by taking actions that disregard Israel's sovereignty, it doesn't matter. Israel is still threatened by its neighbors, and might still be annihilated in any conflict, if the conflict takes a wrong turn. Besides the fact that getting into regular missile launching contests is not an acceptable way for this to continue indefinitely.

Absolutely. Israel is an old hand at dealing with this however.

If it's your opinion that the way this has been dealt with for the past 60 years is an acceptable solution, I disagree. I don't think that constant bus explosions are "ok." In other words, I disapprove.

Total agreement here. At least a few years ago, this was the majority opinion in Israel as well. I think the only difference of opinion we have on this is with regards to Israel's glacial pace.

I don't think their "pace" even qualifies as a pace. I think it's a dog and pony show, like what the US does about environmental issues, do only just enough so you can say you're doing something, but not so much as to change the status quo in any way.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So I guess you're saying that since Israel "started it," it's not a big problem?

No. I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying that because Israel "started it" it makes a bad example of how Israel needs to fear it's neighbors. It's the other way around.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If it's your opinion that the way this has been dealt with for the past 60 years is an acceptable solution, I disagree. I don't think that constant bus explosions are "ok." In other words, I disapprove.

Boiling down 60 years of history into a question of whether or not busses still explode isn't just rejecting nuance, it's shaking nuance down for lunch money.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't think their "pace" even qualifies as a pace. I think it's a dog and pony show, like what the US does about environmental issues, do only just enough so you can say you're doing something, but not so much as to change the status quo in any way.

Time will tell. They've managed to withdraw from the Sinai, withdraw from Lebanon (twice), and seem willing to give back the Golan Heights. They've handed back Gaza (though they could loosen up with the cordon), and parts of the West Bank are under Palestinian rule.

Any rational being would want this to have happened faster, but...

Well, I don't know. You must have some pretty friggin' impressive ponies where you come from.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

No. I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying that because Israel "started it" it makes a bad example of how Israel needs to fear it's neighbors. It's the other way around.

It doesn't matter who "started it" because who "started it" is a matter of opinion. It could have been "started" soldiers being kidnapped or by commercial jetliners being flown into buildings or by any other action not considered "starting it" by any particular bystander. And those actions were all instigated by previous actions of one side or another, etc ad infinitum. There is no such thing as "starting it" in an objective sense. That's what I'm saying. As for why this case is relevant, you can't be having your soldiers captured as prisoners of war unless there's a war.

Boiling down 60 years of history into a question of whether or not busses still explode isn't just rejecting nuance, it's shaking nuance down for lunch money.

Hiding behind "nuance" is akin to declaring peace in Iraq because you can walk down a marketplace there with a contingent of armed soldiers and attack helicopters at your back thereby deluding yourself that it's just like a street in Indiana. "Nuance" implies that the only metric by which you're succeeding is by comparing yourself to the even worse failure you used to be. I'm not interested in "nuance," I'm interested in results.

Time will tell. They've managed to withdraw from the Sinai, withdraw from Lebanon (twice), and seem willing to give back the Golan Heights. They've handed back Gaza (though they could loosen up with the cordon), and parts of the West Bank are under Palestinian rule.

Any rational being would want this to have happened faster, but...

Well, I don't know. You must have some pretty friggin' impressive ponies where you come from.

Highly reminiscent of Bush's "if we just stay until we win, we'll never lose." Did you buy that one too?

[Chongo]

Why is it when Israel recaptures land taken in a previous war it's "occupied territory"? Jordon took the West Bank and Egypt took Gaza in the 1948 war and Israel took them back in 1967, along with the Sinai Peninsula. Israel's mistake has been using the term "occupied territories" when referring to Gaza and the West Bank. The should be using the term "recaptured lands".
From the BBC

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Why is it when Israel recaptures land taken in a previous war it's "occupied territory"? Jordon took the West Bank and Egypt took Gaza in the 1948 war and Israel took them back in 1967, along with the Sinai Peninsula. Israel's mistake has been using the term "occupied territories" when referring to Gaza and the West Bank. The should be using the term "recaptured lands".

Egypt and Jordan didn't take the West Bank and Gaza from Israel, they took it from indigenous Arabs. How can Israel recapture something that wasn't theirs to begin with?

[ironknee]

just curious, how many of you who are pro israel doing it because you think it's the super sign of the um... end-times?

[subego]

Doesn't raise hand.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Egypt and Jordan didn't take the West Bank and Gaza from Israel, they took it from indigenous Arabs. How can Israel recapture something that wasn't theirs to begin with?

and the indigenous Jews. The Arabs were told to leave and they could claim all the land after" the Jews were pushed into the sea"

Haled al-Azm, the Prime Minister of Syria in 1948 and 1949 declared in his memoirs;

"Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated between our call to them to leave. Only a few months separated between our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return." (Vol. I, pp. 386-87)

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

and the indigenous Jews. The Arabs were told to leave and they could claim all the land after" the Jews were pushed into the sea"

So?

Gaza and the West Bank weren't part of Israel when it was created, and they weren't part of Israel after the armistice. How did Israel recapture them in '67?

[Face Ache]

That Gaza Strip is never gonna fly - it reminds me of those Russian Matryoshka dolls - put an Arab area inside a Jewish area inside an Arab area...

Straight, well defined borders will fix it. And how hard can that be?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

So?

Gaza and the West Bank weren't part of Israel when it was created, and they weren't part of Israel after the armistice. How did Israel recapture them in '67?

with Moshe Dyan

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

As for why this case is relevant, you can't be having your soldiers captured as prisoners of war unless there's a war.

Of course you can. That's what started the war.

Seriously though, I think I get your point. Who started it is relative and irrelevant. I still don't see how you then jump to this meaning Israel must adopt a non-retaliation policy. The argument you give seems to center on this being the only way Israel can save itself from impending annihilation... by the Palestinians.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Hiding behind "nuance" is akin to declaring peace in Iraq because you can walk down a marketplace there with a contingent of armed soldiers and attack helicopters at your back thereby deluding yourself that it's just like a street in Indiana. "Nuance" implies that the only metric by which you're succeeding is by comparing yourself to the even worse failure you used to be. I'm not interested in "nuance," I'm interested in results.

You're right. The Indiana thing is ridiculous. You've clearly never been to Gary.

Most states in our country have Israel's homicide rate for breakfast. Even on a bad day, Connecticut could kick Israel's ass in the senseless violence department. Twice.

This isn't a good thing, but lord, have some perspective.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Highly reminiscent of Bush's "if we just stay until we win, we'll never lose." Did you buy that one too?

Here goes Mr. Peaceable kneeing nuance in the junk again. That nuance is quite the ponce.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

with Moshe Dyan

Evasive non-answer #2.

So, seeing as how the West Bank and Gaza were never part of Israel to begin with, how could Israel have "re" anythinged with it?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Evasive non-answer #2.

So, seeing as how the West Bank and Gaza were never part of Israel to begin with, how could Israel have "re" anythinged with it?

Gaza and the West Bank were never part of (Trans)Jordon or Egypt nor the Golan Height part of Syria either. As I pointed out before, those area were part of the original Jewish partition before the U.N. cowed to pressure and changed it. The "Palestinians" HAVE a home land and it is called Jordon, it was 77% of the British Mandate. The Arab partition and was called "Arab Palestine" and the other 23% was called "Jewish Palestine"

Had Israel managed to hold those area in the 1948 war they would have part of the armistice agreement and been parts of Israel.

This was the original plan for the Jewish homeland

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Gaza and the West Bank were never part of (Trans)Jordon or Egypt nor the Golan Height part of Syria either. As I pointed out before, those area were part of the original Jewish partition before the U.N. cowed to pressure and changed it. The "Palestinians" HAVE a home land and it is called Jordon, it was 77% of the British Mandate. The Arab partition and was called "Arab Palestine" and the other 23% was called "Jewish Palestine"

Much less evasive. Sorry to make you have to re-explain it.

We can agree to disagree here, I just wanted to make sure there was nothing I was missing.

While it would have been swell for the UN not to have caved, they did, and the then existing Jewish Government signed off on it.

Edit: we'd probably agree that the UN killing more people than they help is just par for the course.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Much less evasive. Sorry to make you have to re-explain it.

We can agree to disagree here, I just wanted to make sure there was nothing I was missing.

While it would have been swell for the UN not to have caved, they did, and the then existing Jewish Government signed off on it.

Edit: we'd probably agree that the UN killing more people than they help is just par for the course.