[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Except that what you say is internationally recognized and legitimized isn't so recognized- it isn't a border, it's a cease-fire line. Hamas refuses to recognize it as a border, or legitimate. Neither does Iran, or Syria.

And how did we get to the 1967 cease-fire line? Because Egypt, Jordan, Syria decided it was a good time to attack and rid the world of Israel, because they didn't recognize it, and didn't see legitimacy.

Yes, the neightbours of Israel didn't see the pre-67-borders as a final border, and Israel did neither, they dreamed of the israeli version of the open frontier that could be gradually expanded until Greater Israel was established... but whatever arabs and israelis dreamed of doesn't matter, it only matters what the UN-security-council decided, which is by the way the forum that granted Israel international legitimacy in the first place, and that recognized Israel after expansion within the pre 67-borders, but views the rest as illegal occupation, including Gaza, Westbank, East-Jerusalem and Golan.

I can see considerable improvement in the area, though, israeli elites and arabic elites have obviously gave up their maximalist dreams and prefer a negotiated peace, as can be seen by Saudi-Arabia-initiated peace-proposal of the Arabic league.
Even Syria's president is now willing for peace, although the US is blocking peace-negotiations because Syria is officially part of the axis of evil.

Iran seems to be the only country in the middle-east not interested in peace-negotiations with Israel, and still has its maximalist-dreams.


Taliesin

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The owner of the spot gets a say in this. He owns it, it can't just be declared illegal and that word have any meaning. That's like declaring the existance of Kenya to be illegal. It doesn't make much sense.

Perhaps this little analogy has run its course. However here in Kenya this happens all the time, its called land-grabbing. Someone in power declares a piece of land to be theirs and like magic they now own it. The more sophisticated politicians draw up fake land titles, but most of the time people just build their illegal structures and assume outright ownership. It's really quite simple.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Perhaps this little analogy has run its course. However here in Kenya this happens all the time, its called land-grabbing. Someone in power declares a piece of land to be theirs and like magic they now own it. The more sophisticated politicians draw up fake land titles, but most of the time people just build their illegal structures and assume outright ownership. It's really quite simple.

The analogy was broken before it began. The difference between your illegal land grabs in Kenya, and Israel is that Israel began with legitimacy - Taliesin acknowledges this. Israel then never claimed or siezed land in a land grab, but instead held land secured while defending itself from attack. This is different in character than your Kenya example.

That's it. The notion of a "Greater Israel" never had any chance, and was never an aim by anyone in power. Jabotinsky didn't win, Ben Gurion did. By the time a Jabotinsky supporter came into power in 1979, what did he do? Give back Sinai. If Israel had been committed to a "Greater Israel", history would have shown Israel launching wars of aggression to sieze land, for expansionism's sake, not security -and history shows quite the opposite.

Taliesin, Syria does not want to make peace with Israel. Syria wishes to 'renew contacts' - but Syria isn't being kept from doing so by the US, Syria is being kept from doing so by Syria's actions: Syria and Iran supported HizbAllah in HizbAllah's latest war against Israel, and with Iran and HizbAllah both making overtures towards the extinction of Israel and Syria in league with those two, it's going to take someone in power other than Assad before Syria has any hope of being considered a legitimate partner for discussions.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

...Israel began with legitimacy - Taliesin acknowledges this.

Not quite, I think that the 7% of today's Israel that got bought by jews are a legitimate land-purchase. But it was illegitimate to use purchased land to found an independent state upon it, not to speak of the expansion into non-purchased land.

For the sake of peace and because of the mercy that I feel for the hardships jews had to endure in Europe and Russia, I'm sympathetic towards an Israel within the pre67-borders.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

That's it. The notion of a "Greater Israel" never had any chance, and was never an aim by anyone in power. Jabotinsky didn't win, Ben Gurion did. By the time a Jabotinsky supporter came into power in 1979, what did he do? Give back Sinai. If Israel had been committed to a "Greater Israel", history would have shown Israel launching wars of aggression to sieze land, for expansionism's sake, not security -and history shows quite the opposite.

That's the point really, the dream of "Greater Israel" was dreamed by nearly all political elites of Israel, not just the hardliners like Jabotinsky and Ben Gurion.

That dream turned into nightmare when Egypt launched the 73-war and proved that arabic armies were capable to invade Israel and could win. Another development was the introduction of rocket-technology into the conflict, when the PLO used Lebanon to fire rockets into Israel, and as such constituted an answer and threat to Israel's air-superiority/souvereignity.

In that circumstance Israel decided to shut down one front, in order to have free hand on the other front. It made peace with Egypt and war with Lebanon.

As to your argument that the wars Israel launched were launched for security's sake and not for expansionism's sake: Of course Israel couldn't simply and directly conduct its Greater Israel program without taking into account international opinion, espescially of the US and the UN-security-council, and therefore risking to become a pariah-state, losing legitimacy, facing boycotts, sanctions and even military intervention by the UN. Therefore the expansionistic goals were coated and hidden in security-goals, and wars were started when enough justification through the acts and words of the neighbours could be gathered and presented. If the neighbours were too silent and nonagressive the secret agencies were always ready to provoke some movement on that front.

To furhter prove that Israel always dreamt of a Greater Israel, you have just to look at the illegal settler-program, that Israel massively supported in the occupied territories, the dispossession of palestinian land there, the water-restrictions put on the palestinians and the whole legislatic discrimination, that aimed at making life for the palestinians there a hardship in order to give them an incentive to leave, and I'm not even speaking of the military and secret agencies' actions.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Taliesin, Syria does not want to make peace with Israel. Syria wishes to 'renew contacts' - but Syria isn't being kept from doing so by the US, Syria is being kept from doing so by Syria's actions: Syria and Iran supported HizbAllah in HizbAllah's latest war against Israel, and with Iran and HizbAllah both making overtures towards the extinction of Israel and Syria in league with those two, it's going to take someone in power other than Assad before Syria has any hope of being considered a legitimate partner for discussions.

Syria has officially stated, that it is ready for peace, if Israel is ready to give back the Golan-heights. The support for Hezbollah is nothing but an ace, a pressure-mean, a pawn to bring into negotiations and to be sacrificed for the goal of peace.
Israel knows that, but the US has directly prevented negotiations.

Taliesin

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

That's the point really, the dream of "Greater Israel" was dreamed by nearly all political elites of Israel, not just the hardliners like Jabotinsky and Ben Gurion.

Except that you don't know your history.

Jabotinsky did have the dream of a "Greater Israel." His ideas never gained political currency, and Ben Gurion's, who REJECTED A "Greater Israel", did. Ben Gurion was no hardliner.

That dream turned into nightmare when Egypt launched the 73-war and proved that arabic armies were capable to invade Israel and could win. Another development was the introduction of rocket-technology into the conflict, when the PLO used Lebanon to fire rockets into Israel, and as such constituted an answer and threat to Israel's air-superiority/souvereignity.

Incorrect. The dream of a "Greater Israel" was still-born before the 1950s. By the time Menachem Begin, a Jabotinskyite in his youth, made it into office in the 1970s, did he expand with aggressive offensive action land grabs? No. He gave up the Sinai.

As to your argument that the wars Israel launched were launched for security's sake and not for expansionism's sake: Of course Israel couldn't simply and directly conduct its Greater Israel program without taking into account international opinion, espescially of the US and the UN-security-council, and therefore risking to become a pariah-state, losing legitimacy, facing boycotts, sanctions and even military intervention by the UN. Therefore the expansionistic goals were coated and hidden in security-goals, and wars were started when enough justification through the acts and words of the neighbours could be gathered and presented. If the neighbours were too silent and nonagressive the secret agencies were always ready to provoke some movement on that front.

Ahh, you use words that show you know the truth I speak: "lose legitimacy" - that means Israel had legitimacy to lose.

But you can't let on that you know the truth, so you resort to nonsense like secret agencies provoking neighboring countries to aggression. Please. Read http://www.amazon.com/Israels-Secret.../dp/0802132863

To furhter prove that Israel always dreamt of a Greater Israel, you have just to look at the illegal settler-program, that Israel massively supported in the occupied territories, the dispossession of palestinian land there, the water-restrictions put on the palestinians and the whole legislatic discrimination, that aimed at making life for the palestinians there a hardship in order to give them an incentive to leave, and I'm not even speaking of the military and secret agencies' actions.

Incorrect. The water rights were negotiated in Oslo. That same Oslo that the Palestinians violated soon after it was signed. The land there was Egypt's and Jordan's. It resorted to Israel when Israel offered it back under UN 242 and Egypt and Jordan refused. Israel, rather than making it under complete Israeli authority agreed in Oslo to make it under a Palestinian Authority, with the reservation that if security required it, Israel would act. Security has required it.

Legislative burdens? There are Palestinian Israeli Arabs elected to the Legislature. Don't give me nonsense about legislative discrimination aimed at making life for Palestinians a hardship. Israel has continually improved the quality of life for Palestinians in every decade, and the Palestinians willfully throw it away. Israel funded schools, police, residences, gave up greenhouses, gave up all of Gaza, consistently pays money into the PA coffers, and Palestinians continue to broadcast on their media that their children will get their rights when they kill Israelis.

Syria has officially stated, that it is ready for peace, if Israel is ready to give back the Golan-heights. The support for Hezbollah is nothing but an ace, a pressure-mean, a pawn to bring into negotiations and to be sacrificed for the goal of peace.
Israel knows that, but the US has directly prevented negotiations.

Taliesin

The US has not prevented negotiations. Israel flatly refuses to deal with a Syria that fuels HizbAllah in a war against Israel. Syria has prevented negotiations through her actions.

UN 242 requires that Israel give up some land obtained in 1967 but that it maintain secure borders. Giving up the Golan means giving up a secure border. Even as it is, rockets fall on Israel fired over the Golan. The people of Kiryat Shomna were no strangers to that before HizBallah's latest adventure, it was a regular occurrence. The short answer is, it's been 30 years and Syria should begin to reckon with the possibility that it is lost to them.

UN 1701 requires that HizbAllah be disarmed. The UN peacekeepers aren't doing it and have said they have no intention of doing it. The Syrians keep arming them even now.

Arming an enemy sworn to destroy Israel is not an 'ace', it's a barrier. Remaining in league with Iran who is likewise sworn to destroy Israel is a barrier.

By Assad's continued arming HizbAllah, he has made Syria an intractable enemy whose overtures of peace are rightfully seen as fraudulent.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Except that you don't know your history.

Jabotinsky did have the dream of a "Greater Israel." His ideas never gained political currency, and Ben Gurion's, who REJECTED A "Greater Israel", did. Ben Gurion was no hardliner.
Incorrect. The dream of a "Greater Israel" was still-born before the 1950s. By the time Menachem Begin, a Jabotinskyite in his youth, made it into office in the 1970s, did he expand with aggressive offensive action land grabs? No. He gave up the Sinai.

Like I already said, the dream of "Greater Israel" was one dreamt by nearly all israeli polticians, they only differed in what it means. In 73 the dream of Greater Israel got modified to concentrate on the whole of Westbank, Golan and Gaza, and to leave Sinai out of it
In 2004/2005 part of the Likudparty was ready to remodify the "Greater Israel"-dream to mean "Greater Jerusalem", because of the reproduction-rate of palestinians in the occupied areas, and therefore broke with Likud and became Kadima.

Ultra-orthodox parties and movements still believe "Greater Israel" to mean the area between Nile and Euphrates, but they don't have mainstream-appeal in isaeli politics.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Ahh, you use words that show you know the truth I speak: "lose legitimacy" - that means Israel had legitimacy to lose.

But you can't let on that you know the truth, so you resort to nonsense like secret agencies provoking neighboring countries to aggression. Please. Read Amazon.com: Israel's Secret Wars: A History of Israel's Intelligence Services: Books: Ian Black

Of course an Israel that would be branded to be a pariah-state by the UN-security-council would risk losing legitimacy and risk to become the target of military intervention and regime-change.
That israeli secret agencies were involved in false-flag and agent provocatuers-operations to provoke reactions and to influence opinions and actions of its neighbours as well as western powers and allies is well known, but then this is nothing out of common for modern secret agencies.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Incorrect. The water rights were negotiated in Oslo. That same Oslo that the Palestinians violated soon after it was signed. The land there was Egypt's and Jordan's. It resorted to Israel when Israel offered it back under UN 242 and Egypt and Jordan refused. Israel, rather than making it under complete Israeli authority agreed in Oslo to make it under a Palestinian Authority, with the reservation that if security required it, Israel would act. Security has required it.

Incorrect. The Oslo-years and negotiations clearly show not only how the palestinians authority violated the accords, but how Israel violated them, too, even to the point of absurdity: The years of the peace-talks marked the time where the financial and military support for the illegal settler-program in the Westbank reached its climax.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Legislative burdens? There are Palestinian Israeli Arabs elected to the Legislature. Don't give me nonsense about legislative discrimination aimed at making life for Palestinians a hardship.

Yes, legislative burdens for the palestinians! I was not talking about israeli arabs, but about palestinians, ie. the occupied people in the Westbank and Gaza.

Are you really sure, that you want to go down the route, claiming that israeli occupation and the legal discrimination and economic hardships, were really the opposite, a time where Israel generously helped the palestinians? Please, don't give me such nonsense.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The US has not prevented negotiations. Israel flatly refuses to deal with a Syria that fuels HizbAllah in a war against Israel. Syria has prevented negotiations through her actions.

UN 242 requires that Israel give up some land obtained in 1967 but that it maintain secure borders. Giving up the Golan means giving up a secure border. Even as it is, rockets fall on Israel fired over the Golan. The people of Kiryat Shomna were no strangers to that before HizBallah's latest adventure, it was a regular occurrence. The short answer is, it's been 30 years and Syria should begin to reckon with the possibility that it is lost to them.

UN 1701 requires that HizbAllah be disarmed. The UN peacekeepers aren't doing it and have said they have no intention of doing it. The Syrians keep arming them even now.

Arming an enemy sworn to destroy Israel is not an 'ace', it's a barrier. Remaining in league with Iran who is likewise sworn to destroy Israel is a barrier.

By Assad's continued arming HizbAllah, he has made Syria an intractable enemy whose overtures of peace are rightfully seen as fraudulent.

Nonesense and incorrect. Israel should immediately go for peace-talks with Syria, since Syria is the most important link in the chain between Iran and Hezbollah that has to be broken up for the sake of Israel's security. It is definitely worth it even if it means the giving back of the Golan-heights. The argument that the Golan-heights are a security-risk is already way outdated considering the fact that modern rockets don't need the Golan-heights to be fired into all of Israel from anywhere in Syria's territory.

Syria has stated that it sees its support for Hezbollah as a pawn and ace that can be sacrificed for peace with Israel, but only if Israel is ready to give back the Golan-heights.

Olmert himself has so far refused to pursue because he doesn't want to embarass the US, that aims at isolating Syria.

Taliesin

[vmarks]

Well, you've secured for yourself a place in history as a person who twists history to suit himself.

Greater Israel was dead before 1947. Greater Israel only refers to the expansionist notion of an Israel to the Euphrates, not some lesser notion that you have invented.

For years, Israel paid the PA 60 Million USD a MONTH. It improved roads, paid for schools, offered to construct residences to high standards of building code, cooperated with Palestinians to teach them irrigation and greenhouse techniques, and generally done much to raise their standard of living. But even so, they elect a government based on the destruction of Israel. Not as a protest vote against Fatah, but on the principle that Hamas intends to destroy Israel.

As much pressure as Dr. Rice leans on Israel, to the point of leaning on Sharon to give territory to Lebanon when they were busy vacating Gaza, it is not enough to influence Israeli policy. When Dr. Rice demanded of the defense ministry and Sharon that they give up territory to Lebanon, Israel rightfully told her that no one in Israel had elected her and that they were busy giving up Gaza, that the question of land and Lebanon was settled when the UN agreed Israel was in compliance back in 2000.

The fact is that Syria has backed itself into a corner through its support of HizbAllah and its rocket attacks from Syria over the Golan, and it is going to take a new leader in Syria, a Syria that doesn't support HizbAllah, and a Syria that rids itself of the Hamas and HizbAllah within its borders in order to make peace. That Olmert refuses to speak to Assad is not a sign that the US is applying pressure, but a sign that Olmert sees that he has no genuine partner for peace.

[hey!_Zeus]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Well, you've secured for yourself a place in history as a person who twists history to suit himself.

Well the Jews haven't???

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by hey!_Zeus 

Well the Jews haven't???

Do you mean Jews or Israelis? And the answer is, not if you knew your history. There is no equivalence here.

[hey!_Zeus]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Do you mean Jews or Israelis? And the answer is, not if you knew your history. There is no equivalence here.

The white Ashkenazi Zionists are incorrect when they claim that their ancestors came from Palestine.

90 per cent of Jews are not even semitic or related to the original Jewish folk of biblical times.

They are really Khazarians who converted around 800 AD.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by hey!_Zeus 

The white Ashkenazi Zionists are incorrect when they claim that their ancestors came from Palestine.

90 per cent of Jews are not even semitic or related to the original Jewish folk of biblical times.

They are really Khazarians who converted around 800 AD.

Actually, no. That was a theory put forth in the middle of the 20th century to with the intention of disminishing anti-semitism. Unfortunately, it had the reverse effect and is very popular with anti-semites.

The theoretical Khazar contribution to the bloodline of modern Ashkenazi Jews proposed by some, most famously the non-historian novelist Arthur Koestler (in The Thirteenth Tribe), is not generally accepted by historians. Genetic studies show that Ashkenazi Y-Chromosome DNA seems to have originated in Middle Eastern populations, [6] as has the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of at least 40% of the current Ashkenazi population.[7] So although Khazars might have been absorbed into the Jewish population it is unlikely that they formed a large percentage of the ancestors of modern Ashkenazim. [8]

--- Khazars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

6 - Hammer, M. F., A. J. Redd, E. T. Wood, M. R. Bonner, H. Jarjanazi, T. Karafet, S. Santachiara-Benerecetti, A. Oppenheim, M. A. Jobling, T. Jenkins, H. Ostrer, and B. Bonné-Tamir (May 9 2000). "Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

7 - Behar, Doron M., Ene Metspalu, Toomas Kivisild, Alessandro Achilli, Yarin Hadid, Shay Tzur, Luisa Pereira, Antonio Amorim, Lluı�s Quintana-Murci, Kari Majamaa, Corinna Herrnstadt, Neil Howell, Oleg Balanovsky, Ildus Kutuev, Andrey Pshenichnov, David Gurwitz, Batsheva Bonne-Tamir, Antonio Torroni, Richard Villems, and Karl Skorecki (March 2006). "The Matrilineal Ancestry of Ashkenazi Jewry: Portrait of a Recent Founder Event". The American Journal of Human Genetics 78 (3): 487-97. PMID 16404693. http://www.ftdna.com/pdf/43026_Doron.pdf

8 - The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East by Almut Nebel, Dvora Filon, Bernd Brinkmann, Partha P. Majumder, Marina Faerman, Ariella Oppenheim (The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 69, number 5. pp. 1095-1112)

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Well, you've secured for yourself a place in history as a person who twists history to suit himself.

Greater Israel was dead before 1947. Greater Israel only refers to the expansionist notion of an Israel to the Euphrates, not some lesser notion that you have invented.

Hmm, it's strange that you as an israeli don't know your own history and politics, not even realizing that the term "Greater Israel" has different interpretations, going from hardline radical variants, to more moderate ones, till it found its last expression in the Kadima-party as meaning "Greater Jerusalem". It's fact, don't you remember that one of the parties that united with other parties to found the Likud-party in the 70s was "The movement for Greater Israel"(!!)? Don't your realize that the ideology of the settler-movement in the occupied areas is based upon the "Greater Israel"-concept and that both Likud and Labour supported the settler-movement considerably?

Originally Posted by vmarks 

For years, Israel paid the PA 60 Million USD a MONTH.

Are you joking? Israel didn't pay anything, it collects 75% of the taxes of palestinians that go to work in Israel, and 100% of the tax of palestinians working in the occupied territories and gives all that to the PA, that is if it doesn't see a reason to freeze the transfer of palestinian taxes.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

It improved roads, paid for schools, offered to construct residences to high standards of building code, cooperated with Palestinians to teach them irrigation and greenhouse techniques, and generally done much to raise their standard of living.

Incorrect. Israel improved roads for israeli settlements in the occupied areas, that usually are reserved for israeli settlers, and usually destroyed palestinian roads and houses during military raids. The teaching of irrigation-techniques towards palestinians is not done nor financed by Israel's government, but by private israeli peace-organisations.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

But even so, they elect a government based on the destruction of Israel. Not as a protest vote against Fatah, but on the principle that Hamas intends to destroy Israel.

Incorrect. Hamas got voted because of the corruptness of Fatah.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

As much pressure as Dr. Rice leans on Israel, to the point of leaning on Sharon to give territory to Lebanon when they were busy vacating Gaza, it is not enough to influence Israeli policy. When Dr. Rice demanded of the defense ministry and Sharon that they give up territory to Lebanon, Israel rightfully told her that no one in Israel had elected her and that they were busy giving up Gaza, that the question of land and Lebanon was settled when the UN agreed Israel was in compliance back in 2000.

Understandable reaction, but clearly not tangling the point, that Israel is not talking with Syria because it would undermine US' policy to isolate Syria. Different shoes.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The fact is that Syria has backed itself into a corner through its support of HizbAllah and its rocket attacks from Syria over the Golan, and it is going to take a new leader in Syria, a Syria that doesn't support HizbAllah, and a Syria that rids itself of the Hamas and HizbAllah within its borders in order to make peace. That Olmert refuses to speak to Assad is not a sign that the US is applying pressure, but a sign that Olmert sees that he has no genuine partner for peace.

That's the problem really, when to start peace-negotiations: Should Israel start peace-negotiations with Syria only after it cracked down on Hamas and Hezbollah on its territory and cut ties to Hamas and Hezbollah outside of its territory or should it be the result of peace-negotiations?

I think the latter version is much more likely.

Taliesin

[Hawkeye_a]

Then why hasnt Syria, Iran, Lebanon or Jordan made any progress in the disarmament of militias (In particular groups deemed terrorists by the rest of the world) bent on Israel's destruction ?

Oh any by the way....in order to have a "democracy" you need to have a "nation"/"country"... Palestine is a myth, and does not have a place and/or legitimacy in the group of world nations....the entire world has decided on that, not Israel.

Show me time/laws(and enforcement)/resources/manpower... invested by the Syrians, Lebaneeses, Iranian or Jordanian to combat armed militias(terrorists), and i will consider their commitment to peace. Until then....rockets, guns, bombs, threats, and nuclear ambition are all i have to go on to form my opinion and to ballpark their long-term objectives.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Then why hasnt Syria, Iran, Lebanon or Jordan made any progress in the disarmament of militias (In particular groups deemed terrorists by the rest of the world) bent on Israel's destruction ?

Show me time/laws(and enforcement)/resources/manpower... invested by the Syrians, Lebaneeses, Iranian or Jordanian to combat armed militias(terrorists), and i will consider their commitment to peace. Until then....rockets, guns, bombs, threats, and nuclear ambition are all i have to go on to form my opinion and to ballpark their long-term objectives.

Syria wants to keep support for these militias until Israel gives back Golan and wants to make peace, Lebanon is too weak to tackle the disarming of Hezbollah, Jordan has long ago disarmed militias on its soil and made peace with Israel, just like Egypt.

Iran is not interested in peace with Israel.

Militias have definitely their uses in cases where an ordinary army is not available, like for example in Palestine, in the other cases like Lebanon, Syria or Iran of course not.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Oh any by the way....in order to have a "democracy" you need to have a "nation"/"country"... Palestine is a myth, and does not have a place and/or legitimacy in the group of world nations....the entire world has decided on that, not Israel.

Incorrect. Palestine received the same international legitimacy, at the same time as Israel, namely when the UN-security-coucil decided the division of the Palestine of 1946 into a jewish-majority part and an arabic majority-part.

Furthermore the country strenghtened its legitimacy after Egypt and Jordan gave up Gaza and Westbank, through a decades-long resistance-fight against israeli occupation which culminated in the first intifada when all palestinians excercised civilian disobedience despite the israeli oppression and military action to throw down the uprising.

After that uprising, the international community put it on its agenda to work towards the liberation of the palestinians from occupation and the establishment of an independent palestinian state.


Taliesin

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Incorrect. Palestine received the same international legitimacy, at the same time as Israel, namely when the UN-security-coucil decided the division of the Palestine of 1946 into a jewish-majority part and an arabic majority-part.

And the Palestinians and surrounding Arab countries rejected that division as they had every opportunity prior, forfeiting it.

They chose war instead, and lost everything.

Furthermore the country strenghtened its legitimacy after Egypt and Jordan gave up Gaza and Westbank, through a decades-long resistance-fight against israeli occupation which culminated in the first intifada when all palestinians excercised civilian disobedience despite the israeli oppression and military action to throw down the uprising.

When Egypt and Jordan decided to not accept those territories back from Israel, they defaulted to Israel. Israel generously agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian Authority, and armed that authority, and formed diplomatic relations with that authority, only to have that authority stab it in the back.

After that uprising, the international community put it on its agenda to work towards the liberation of the palestinians from occupation and the establishment of an independent palestinian state.

Taliesin

Israel, despite being repeatedly violated by the Palestinian Authority, repeatedly having its citizens attacked and murdered in the streets, homes, and schools by it, is intent on giving a state to the Palestininan Authority, in the hopes that it will pacify them.

According to the Palestinian Authority, it will not pacify them.

Which means that doing so actually prolongs the violence and deaths. The truth is that negotiations have been premature, and prolonged it all. The Palestinian Authority is intractable, and so one side must be beaten before negotiations for peace can be meaningul - the Palestinian Authority has to be ready to be genuine, where it never has before. Alternatively, Israel can give up and accept that her people will die at the hands of the Palestinian Authority, which is also a peace of sorts - Those are the two possible outcomes, due to the Palestinian Authority's intractable nature.

But go on, keep trying negotiations. Get back to me when they've failed again.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Syria wants to keep support for these militias until Israel gives back Golan and wants to make peace, Lebanon is too weak to tackle the disarming of Hezbollah, Jordan has long ago disarmed militias on its soil and made peace with Israel, just like Egypt.

Iran is not interested in peace with Israel.

Militias have definitely their uses in cases where an ordinary army is not available, like for example in Palestine, in the other cases like Lebanon, Syria or Iran of course not.



Incorrect. Palestine received the same international legitimacy, at the same time as Israel, namely when the UN-security-coucil decided the division of the Palestine of 1946 into a jewish-majority part and an arabic majority-part.

Furthermore the country strenghtened its legitimacy after Egypt and Jordan gave up Gaza and Westbank, through a decades-long resistance-fight against israeli occupation which culminated in the first intifada when all palestinians excercised civilian disobedience despite the israeli oppression and military action to throw down the uprising.

After that uprising, the international community put it on its agenda to work towards the liberation of the palestinians from occupation and the establishment of an independent palestinian state.


Taliesin

Is "Palestine" a country, according to the United Nations, today ?

Why, after 50+ years has the arab world, including Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt, not been able to destroy the militas/terrorists operating within it's borders ? is it, incompentence, neglegence or just plain of support for these groups ?

Palestine is "commited" to peace ? bull shyte dude...their version of "peace" is control over that entire geographic area, with Jews and Christians hunted from there or forced to live under unequal conditions. Something no non-muslim aught to put up with.

So Israel moves out of Gaza and then Hez attacks border patrols ? is that "just" ? which one of these factions (forgoing the question of authority and legitimacy) seems "right" ? jeeze.

I recommend this solution. Israel occupy and take control of all areas not part of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon or Egypt. therefore eleminating "disputed" territories. I would fully support Israel in just taking this action once and for all and just bringing some sort of order to that shyte-hole the arab world calls "palestine".

And if Syria, Lebanon, Jordan or Egypt cant maintain their borders and militias....the UN can deal with them accordingly with sanctions, etc.

The recent war with Lebanon was not very fruitful, cause the hordes managed to regroup rather quickly....i think it would have been a lot more effective if that retaliation was directed towards the disputed areas, and ending the 'dispute' once and for all. And if that happens, Israel isnt encroaching on Iran, Saudi Arabia o the rest of the muslim world, so if they start yammering, they can just shutup, cause its none of their busliness and this "obviously" has nothing to do with religion.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

And the Palestinians and surrounding Arab countries rejected that division as they had every opportunity prior, forfeiting it.

They chose war instead, and lost everything.

Understandable reaction, but doesn't change anything considering the international legitimacy of Palestine, it's strongly linked with Israel's legitimacy.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

When Egypt and Jordan decided to not accept those territories back from Israel, they defaulted to Israel. Israel generously agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian Authority, and armed that authority, and formed diplomatic relations with that authority, only to have that authority stab it in the back.


Israel, despite being repeatedly violated by the Palestinian Authority, repeatedly having its citizens attacked and murdered in the streets, homes, and schools by it, is intent on giving a state to the Palestininan Authority, in the hopes that it will pacify them.

According to the Palestinian Authority, it will not pacify them.

Which means that doing so actually prolongs the violence and deaths. The truth is that negotiations have been premature, and prolonged it all. The Palestinian Authority is intractable, and so one side must be beaten before negotiations for peace can be meaningul - the Palestinian Authority has to be ready to be genuine, where it never has before. Alternatively, Israel can give up and accept that her people will die at the hands of the Palestinian Authority, which is also a peace of sorts - Those are the two possible outcomes, due to the Palestinian Authority's intractable nature.

But go on, keep trying negotiations. Get back to me when they've failed again.

Incorrect. Gaza, Sinai and Westbank were conquered by Israel in 1967 and kept under israeli control in order to have more strategic depth, and also in order to further work on the dream of "Greater Israel" through the settler-program. Israel never offered Gaza nor Westbank to be taken back by Egypt and Jordan, that is simply untrue!

Israel's politicians indeed decided that they didn't want to keep hold of Sinai and Golan and to offer them to be taken back by Syria and Egypt for peace, and the US was asked to transmit the offer to Egypt and Syria, but the US didn't transmit it, so that Egypt and Syria did not receive the offer!

Jordan and Egypt did much later, during the eighties, ceded their claims on Gaza and Westbank to the palestinian people and especially the palestinian liberation organization, ie. PLO, the organiasation that the UN, the US and eventually Israel accepted as being the representative of the palestinian people.

It was nothing other than the first intifada, the civilian uprise of the palestinian people in the occupied areas that forced the US and Israel to view the palestinians as distinct people in need of statehood and independence, that set the Oslo-peace-initiative in motion, of course only after the uprising was brutally thrown down by Israel.

It was the insight that the palestinians have developed their distinct political identity and are there to stay and ready to die for their independence, that convinced Israel and the US , that to keep on the occupation would be too costly (financially, humanely, and politically) in the longrun.
After the PLO officially recognized Israel within the pre-67-borders (although there was much double-talk in some circles of the PLO, including its leaders), Israel recognized the PLO in return, and the way was clear for the establishment of the PA.

The peace-talks in Oslo and Camp David ultimately failed, because of Israel and the PA. The PA was not able to fully emancipate itself from its roots in the PLO and therefore much of PLO-resistance-propaganda found its way into the PA-schools and media, calling for liberation of all of Palestine, including all of Israel as being the longterm-goal of the palestinians...

The PA also was not able or not determined to clamp down on all militant activity in its areas of control.

Israel on the other hand was not ready to give up its dream of "Greater Israel" and intensified its support for the settlermovement, expanding and building settlements in the Westbank, in order to create facts on the ground before a final agreement could be made.


Negotiations are always painful and will often fail, but there is really no alternative than a negotiated peace based upon international law and UN-security-council-resolutions.

Both sides will have to cut back their dreams.

Taliesin

[Sky Captain]

This tool just won't shut up.

If only he would run for the President of the US, no?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Is "Palestine" a country, according to the United Nations, today ?

According to the UN, Palestine will be a country, once peace has been established with Israel, and Israel has retreated to its pre67-borders, and an independent palestinian state has been established in Gaza, Westbank and East-Jerusalem.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Why, after 50+ years has the arab world, including Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt, not been able to destroy the militas/terrorists operating within it's borders ? is it, incompentence, neglegence or just plain of support for these groups ?

I don't know where you get your wrong information from, but Jordan and Egypt have definitely reined in their militias, Syria openly supports the Hezbollah-militia in Lebanon, but otherwise reined in militias in its own country, Lebanon is simply too weak after all the wars fought on its soil to do the same as Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Palestine is "commited" to peace ? bull shyte dude...their version of "peace" is control over that entire geographic area, with Jews and Christians hunted from there or forced to live under unequal conditions. Something no non-muslim aught to put up with.

Palestine has definitely a big interest in peace, according to the conditions of having an independent state in all of Westbank and Gaza with East-Jerusalem as its capital.

The question is, will that satisfy Palestine or will it use that state to develop a strong army, or to let other allied arabic states to use their territority for a surprise-attack of Israel through the Westbank, cutting it in half , conquering the two halfes, establishing "Greater Palestine", forcing all jews and their decendants that came in from Europe/US/Russia out of Palestine...?

That possibility can't be weaved off hand, and there are factions in the PLO that dream of such a scenario, but is it likely?

No, not only would a peace-pact with Israel, Syria and Lebanon, that would be in need for a palestinian state to come into existence, alongside the already existing peace-pact with Egypt and Jordan, make it very difficult to pursue such a road, at least not without having to face major sanctions, and all these countries are not well known for their oil-ressources and oil-refineries with which they could operate independently or force western powers to concessions, but it's also militarily way too risky, since Israel has in the mean-time developed an arsenal of nukes it could use if things would go really bad for Israel.

On top of that international monitoring of Palestine-policy, -schools and -media would highlight any preparation and coordination in that direction, and economic benifits/possibilities as well as finally found freedom to move, express, trade... would considerably reduce the appeal of radical actions and ideas among the palestinians themselves.


I will reply to the rest of your posting next time.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

So Israel moves out of Gaza and then Hez attacks border patrols ? is that "just" ? which one of these factions (forgoing the question of authority and legitimacy) seems "right" ? jeeze.

You have formulated it wrongly. You should have said: So Israel moves out of Lebanon and then Hez attacks border patrols? Is that just?

Hezbollah is saying it kidnapped the soldiers, because there are still lebanese prisoners in Israel's prisons that need to be pressed free.

As to the Hamas in Gaza, what justification did they have to kidnapp the israeli soldier after Israel's army and settlers withdrew from Gaza? Of course the idea to press free palestinian prisoners from israeli prisons.

The question though remains, why now? The answer then would demask the official justification as being only abused for other gains: Hamas wants to buy time to find a way out of the international isolation, Hezbollah wants to gain more say in lebanese politics, compensate for Syria's withdrawal, help the palestinians symbolically and also put off the pressure put on Iran a little bit.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I recommend this solution. Israel occupy and take control of all areas not part of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon or Egypt. therefore eleminating "disputed" territories. I would fully support Israel in just taking this action once and for all and just bringing some sort of order to that shyte-hole the arab world calls "palestine".
...

The recent war with Lebanon was not very fruitful, cause the hordes managed to regroup rather quickly....i think it would have been a lot more effective if that retaliation was directed towards the disputed areas, and ending the 'dispute' once and for all. And if that happens, Israel isnt encroaching on Iran, Saudi Arabia o the rest of the muslim world, so if they start yammering, they can just shutup, cause its none of their busliness and this "obviously" has nothing to do with religion.

That's the point really, Israel doesn't want to annex the occupied areas as long as there are palestinians there, as it would threaten the jewish foundation of Israel. That's why it kept these territories for so many years under occupation and oppression, with the hope that the hopelessness of the situation would convince the palestinians to leave. It didn't work out.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

And if Syria, Lebanon, Jordan or Egypt cant maintain their borders and militias....the UN can deal with them accordingly with sanctions, etc.

You are completely wrong here, Syria, Jordan and Egypt have no problems whatsoever with their borders nor with their militias. Lebanon and Palestine are the only ones in the area that have no control over their borders nor over the militias.

Taliesin

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Alternatively, Israel can give up and accept that her people will die at the hands of the Palestinian Authority, which is also a peace of sorts - Those are the two possible outcomes, due to the Palestinian Authority's intractable nature.

But go on, keep trying negotiations. Get back to me when they've failed again.

Actually that option makes the most sense for all sides.

Truth and reconciliation is the only way. In a conflict that lasts 50 years, all sides have equal blame. Ultimately though, the side with the most resources (ie. Israel) is the only side that can make a peace process work.

I have no doubt that if Israel wanted peace tommorow, they could make it happen. But it clearly isn't ready to make the nessessary sacrafices, so the atrocities continue.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Actually that option makes the most sense for all sides.

Truth and reconciliation is the only way. In a conflict that lasts 50 years, all sides have equal blame. Ultimately though, the side with the most resources (ie. Israel) is the only side that can make a peace process work.

I have no doubt that if Israel wanted peace tommorow, they could make it happen. But it clearly isn't ready to make the nessessary sacrafices, so the atrocities continue.

That's just horse ****! Israel has constantly offered peace, only to have their overtures thrown back in their face.

From experience, the only real solution is the kill all the militant Palestinians in the area.

[Big Mac]

The existence of the state of Israel is such a big boon to typical Jew-haters. They can concentrate all their archaic, irrational, stupid hatred of the Jew on a sovereign Jewish political entity. If not for Israel, people like Nicko and goMac would need to go back to citing the Protocols to satisfy their procilivity.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

From experience, the only real solution is the kill all the militant Palestinians in the area.

So you're suggesting that the Israelis attempt to exterminate a large group of people?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by art_director 

So you're suggesting that the Israelis attempt to exterminate a large group of people?

Are you admitting that a "large group of people" are bent on Israel's destruction?

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Are you admitting that a "large group of people" are bent on Israel's destruction?

If you take my post in context, you see I'm merely asking a question. I have not entered the debate, just questioning the meaning behind someone else's post. Looking for clarification, nothing more.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Are you admitting that a "large group of people" are bent on Israel's destruction?

Obviously there is a large portion of the world population that would like to see the destruction of the state of Israel. Fortunately, there are stronger opponents to that idea. All this said, the Israelis haven't acted like good god-fearing people and are far from being innocent. They treat the Palestinians like animals. Granted some of them are but you cannot bulk an entire group together and label them in such a fashion. Hitler tried that and he was dead wrong.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by art_director 

All this said, the Israelis haven't acted like good god-fearing people and are far from being innocent. They treat the Palestinians like animals.

How doe Israel treat them like animals, specifically? I'd like to hear you back up that claim.

[art_director]

Curfews, taking their land for illegal settlements, preventing them from moving about freely...

I support the state of Israel but I'm not thrilled by some of their actions. Of course, I live in a country run by a chimpanzee so it's difficult to point fingers.

[ink]

Christ, just let them all have nuclear weapons and be done with it. They can go through their own version of the cold war while they grow up. If one of them flinches, then oh well, problem solved.

In the mean time, let's get off oil as quickly as we can.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by art_director 

Curfews, taking their land for illegal settlements, preventing them from moving about freely...

I support the state of Israel but I'm not thrilled by some of their actions. Of course, I live in a country run by a chimpanzee so it's difficult to point fingers.

Curfews are imposed when populations cannot manage themselves reasonably. As for "illegal settlements," you can use that term, and I won't be able to convince you of the fact that you're wrong and misinformed. You know little about Israel, but you are readily prepared to vilify it. So be it. To be consistent, you should have also decried the allied bombing campaigns against Germany, because, afterall, that was a terrible way to treat the poor Nazis.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Curfews are imposed when populations cannot manage themselves. As for "illegal settlements," you can use that term, and I won't be able to convince you of the fact that you're wrong and misinformed. You know little about Israel, but you are readily prepared to vilify it. So be it.

Your reading comprehension is questionable at best.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by ink 

Christ, just let them all have nuclear weapons and be done with it. They can go through their own version of the cold war while they grow up. If one of them flinches, then oh well, problem solved.

In the mean time, let's get off oil as quickly as we can.

There's a frightening prospect.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by art_director 

Your reading comprehension is questionable at best.

fallacy: ad hominem

[art_director]

Big Mac:

Since you're into pointing fingers, set your middle one at yourself. I've made few comments on the situation in the Middle East. Based on the little I've said you've made strong accusations. Get a grip.

[Big Mac]

I call it like it is. The truth hurts.

[marden]

Originally Posted by art_director 

Curfews, taking their land for illegal settlements, preventing them from moving about freely...

I support the state of Israel but I'm not thrilled by some of their actions. Of course, I live in a country run by a chimpanzee so it's difficult to point fingers.

Atta boy! Whenever you are busted or are in an embarrassing situation just bash America!

[marden]

Originally Posted by ink 

Christ, just let them all have nuclear weapons and be done with it. They can go through their own version of the cold war while they grow up. If one of them flinches, then oh well, problem solved.

In the mean time, let's get off oil as quickly as we can.

As if there would be only one nuclear detonation and that would end the dispute?

Guess again.

[ink]

Originally Posted by art_director 

There's a frightening prospect.

It worked the last time there was a nuclear arms race.

Are we going to invade every country that develops them? What about Pakistan, India or North Korea? It's inevitable that every country will have nuclear weapons; the technology is quite old already -- and nothing says "don't invade Israel" like a few megatons pointed in Iran's direction.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I call it like it is. The truth hurts.

Your cup of ignorance bubbles over.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by ink 

It worked the last time there was a nuclear arms race.

Are we going to invade every country that develops them? What about Pakistan, India or North Korea? It's inevitable that every country will have nuclear weapons; the technology is quite old already -- and nothing says "don't invade Israel" like a few megatons pointed in Iran's direction.

I was referring to the 'one flinching' portion of your post. To me, nuclear war is a frightening prospect.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by art_director 

So you're suggesting that the Israelis attempt to exterminate a large group of people?

I believe that the Palestinian extremists need to be eliminated. Israel needs to fight back in earnest, shoot to kill.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by marden 

Atta boy! Whenever you are busted or are in an embarrassing situation just bash America!

Stating facts is an embarassing situation? Ha.

I always bash America. And, until our system is fixed, I'll continue to do so.

[ink]

Originally Posted by art_director 

I was referring to the 'one flinching' portion of your post. To me, nuclear war is a frightening prospect.

Yep. Of the "strong fences make good neighbors", they rate as one of the strongest.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

I believe that the Palestinian extremists need to be eliminated. Israel needs to fight back in earnest, shoot to kill.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Mark Larr]

Originally Posted by art_director 

Your cup of ignorance bubbles over.

Well ain't that just a fistfull of stupid.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr 

Well ain't that just a fistfull of stupid.

Your opinion matters to whom?

[Big Mac]

The problem with MacNStein's strategy is that Israel is fighting a popular uprising; exterminating the extremists would mean eliminating a large swathe of the Arab population. Since that is an untenable position, the only true path to peace is population transfer.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

...the only true path to peace is population transfer.

As in the Israelis should get a good rate on moving vans?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The problem with MacNStein's strategy is that Israel is fighting a popular uprising; exterminating the extremists would mean eliminating a large swathe of the Arab population. Since that is an untenable position, the only true path to peace is population transfer.

Population transfer? Explain please.