[olePigeon]

So long as Hamas thinks this is a holy war and that they must succeed, Israel's pretty screwed. There's no way Hamas is going to allow the Jews to live there. Ever.

I hate religion.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

No, we should not forget Jewish history from 60 years ago. But, neither should we think that Jewish history 60 years ago makes Jews MORE entitled than Arabs to the land that makes up Israel simply because of their suffering in the Holocaust.

If you think
horrific collective suffering = entitled to land as compensation
please tell me how you would feel about giving back major chunks of land in the United States to the native communities here that we decimated in our past?

The point here is that the horrors of the Holocaust do NOT give collective world Jewry more rights to the land that makes up Israel than the Arabs who were living there. If you think the horrific suffering endured in the Holocaust DOES entitle Jews to have more rights to that land than Arabs, please come out and say so explicitly.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

dcmacdaddy, Do you think that Jews and Christians appeared in that region only during and after WWII ?

No. Why do you ask?

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

No. Why do you ask?

It seemed that from your post, you think the Jews who moved and settled there did so because of WWII, and decided to form a state just because of the Holocaust (there's nothing wrong in my opinion with using any of that reasoning imo). I guess i might have been mistaken.

Do you think the Jews who moved that region (then BmoP) did something illegal ? In declaring statehood in accordance with the U.N. do you think they did something wrong ? Do you think they instigated the violence that ensued ? What do you think the Arab attitude towards the Jews and Christians was in that region prior to Israel gaining independence ?

In my opinion, the holocaust doesn't give anyone the right to claim that piece of land, and i dont think anyone is using that as an excuse/reason here. But in forming a state(legally) with people who moved there legally, if only to ensure their survival from factions that would kill them based on their religion, is in my opinion the right thing to do. What ensued after Israel achieved independence was a systematic effort to do away with the Jewish state by either killing them off or imposing muslim law(inherently racist) onto them, neither of which are acceptable.

With the west bank and Gaza :
-The Jordanians and Egyptians do not want the burden or the responsibility.
-The people in that region do not want the responsibility of maintaining peace with Israel.
-Israel doesn't want anything to do with them obviously (danger to the Jewish community, and to maintaining the Jewish state democratically; and it's their choice imo)
-And obviously Israel doesn't want to have missiles and mortar shells constantly being fired upon them constantly.
-The people in those territories want it all...... no Jewish state Jerusalem and all the land, and if they dont get it...well... what do you think all the conflict is about ?

So the question is what should be done ? What does Israel loose if it withdraws from the West Bank and Gaza completely ? and puts no restrictions on weapons and ammunition transfer to those places ?The recent events in Gaza are probably a good indication of what could and would happen. Note that, no one wants to take responsibility for what the people in Gaza and West Bank do to Israel.

If anything those "refugees" in Gaza, imo, do not know how to negotiate since they do not even recognize the state with which they are negotiating. And above and beyond that being used by the muslim world at large as proxies to fight the Jewish state via multiple militias and armies.

So the question arises... what would any state do in that situation ? What should Israel do ?
-If it withdraws(which it probably wants to, one reason being it would be a lot cheaper to have peace) it faces the prospect of an arms build up in the hands of people who believe it shouldn't exist, and who cannot offer any guarantee for peace.
-if it stays, it is considered an "occupying" force, etc,etc...

I wonder if all this would be happening, if the Arabs had agreed with the U.N. partition plan to begin with and not attacked the Jewish state at all ? So who do you think is to blame for starting it then ? and what was their motivation/intention ?

I'm pretty sure that when Israel got independence it was not the goals of the Jews to wipe the muslim world off the map... why shouldnt they be afforded the same respect by the muslim world ?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

So long as Hamas thinks this is a holy war and that they must succeed, Israel's pretty screwed. There's no way Hamas is going to allow the Jews to live there. Ever.

Which is why Hamas must be destroyed.

I hate religion.

Why do you hate religion in a blanket fashion? Why don't you hate particular manifestations of evil and hatred connected thereto? I am a religious Jew. I hate radical Islamic terrorists and their sympathizers, but I don't hate Islam generally. I know that there are decent Muslims. Do you see the difference?

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Why do you hate religion in a blanket fashion? Why don't you hate particular manifestations of evil and hatred connected thereto? I am a religious Jew. I hate radical Islamic terrorists and their sympathizers, but I don't hate Islam generally. I know that there are decent Muslims. Do you see the difference?

I agree. Believe it or not i probably know more muslims than other creeds combined. While i do consider them acquaintances and 'peace loving' people generally(just so long as the law is on their side) they do have issues with dealing with 1. Israel and 2. tolerating countries where the law is not 'Islamic'.

I do think Islam and it's followers have not adapted to the modern world the way most other creeds have. As a Roman Catholic, i think this period in Islam and the mindset of it's followers, is akin to the Inquisitions imo. But thats another topic altogether and something i am reading up on. Unfortunately their inability to change is their worst enemy caused by Islam, and unfortunately they have no realized it.

Edit>> Here's a good discussion between Peres and Charlie Rose (circa 1997), where many of the "nitty gritty" aspects of this conflict, in general are discussed.

[Chongo]

Again, the difference between Israel and her enemies.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

No, we should not forget Jewish history from 60 years ago. But, neither should we think that Jewish history 60 years ago makes Jews MORE entitled than Arabs to the land that makes up Israel simply because of their suffering in the Holocaust.

I certainly never suggested that Israel has a right to this territory because they suffered elsewhere. They have a right to the territory because they fought to take it and fought to maintain it; same as any other ruling governance in the history of mankind. Unfortunate feature of mankind, but true none the less. In order for peace to be achieved, often one of two conflicting parties must relent to sensibility.

If you think
horrific collective suffering = entitled to land as compensation
please tell me how you would feel about giving back major chunks of land in the United States to the native communities here that we decimated in our past?

The colonists who first came to America and decimated the Native American tribes are generally regarded as quite cruel right? Yet even the sinister anglo-euro white male found in himself the ability to allocate over 24,000 square miles to the Navajo reservation alone. You might know there are over 300 Native American reservations in the US, but this one reservation alone comprises .66% of the entire land mass of the US. A total figure of all Native American reservations comprises approximately 2.3% of the entire land area of the US. Israel is approximately 8,522 square miles and comprises a total of .47% of all Arab-owned territory in the Middle East.

Please tell me your point was not that Arabs are 5 times more cruel to the Israeli tribes than the US was to the Native American tribes.

*Furthermore, do you really believe there would be peace between Native Americans and the remainder of the US populace if the Native American tribes continued to band together and attack US government infrastructure, lobbed rockets into our cities, and wanted say... California as their right to return? Of course not. The Native Americans relented to sensibility.

The point here is that the horrors of the Holocaust do NOT give collective world Jewry more rights to the land that makes up Israel than the Arabs who were living there. If you think the horrific suffering endured in the Holocaust DOES entitle Jews to have more rights to that land than Arabs, please come out and say so explicitly.

Please cite for me where I determined that the horrific plight of the Jew entitles them to land, otherwise please come right out and admit you have no point at all.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I certainly never suggested that Israel has a right to this territory because they suffered elsewhere. They have a right to the territory because they fought to take it and fought to maintain it; same as any other ruling governance in the history of mankind. Unfortunate feature of mankind, but true none the less. In order for peace to be achieved, often one of two conflicting parties must relent to sensibility.

I never said you suggested any such thing. I simply asked a question regarding what you thought was a reason for Israel to exist. And you answered my question.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Please cite for me where I determined that the horrific plight of the Jew entitles them to land, otherwise please come right out and admit you have no point at all.

I never claimed that you said "suffering = entitlement to land", did I? I asked a question which you answered in the paragraph above. I asked if you believed "suffering = entitlement to land" and you said no. You said the Israelis have "a right to the territory because they fought to take it and fought to maintain it". So, now I have an answer as to why you think Israel should have the land it is on.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

It seemed that from your post, you think the Jews who moved and settled there did so because of WWII, and decided to form a state just because of the Holocaust (there's nothing wrong in my opinion with using any of that reasoning imo). I guess i might have been mistaken.

Yes. Yes you were. No worries, though. That happens in debates when we are not clear enough, like I was with my post.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Do you think the Jews who moved that region (then BmoP) did something illegal?

No.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

In declaring statehood in accordance with the U.N. do you think they did something wrong?

Yes. They did not adhere to the terms of the Mandate which said "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country". Nor did they adhere to the terms of the UN Resolution 181 requiring Palestine to be partitioned.
Here is David Ben Gurion, in 1937, making claims about the Jewish peoples' right to a homeland. "The ever continuing persecution of the Jews has strengthened the Jewish claim for their right to their own country." And in the same newspaper editorial he declaimed, "The Jewish people have always regarded Palestine as a whole, as a single country which is theirs in a national sense and will become theirs once again. No Jw will accept partition as a just and rightful solution."

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Do you think they instigated the violence that ensued?

No. The violence was instigated by the various Arab communities in and around the newly formed Israel in response to the founders of the state of Israel not respecting "the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in [the former] Palestine". Granted, by this point the British Mandate was set to expire so there was no legal structure forcing the founders of Israel to respect the non-Jewish residents in the territory that became Israel, apart from UN Resolution 181, but it would have behooved them to treat their new Arab "citizens" with equality but that did not happen.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

What do you think the Arab attitude towards the Jews and Christians was in that region prior to Israel gaining independence?

I don't know and I don't care. "The Arab attitude towards the Jews and Christians in that region prior to Israel gaining independence" is not of concern as to the legitimacy of how Israel established itself as a nation. If the Arabs loved the Christians and Jews it would not make any difference on the legitimacy of Israel's founding.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

So the question is what should be done ? What does Israel loose if it withdraws from the West Bank and Gaza completely ? and puts no restrictions on weapons and ammunition transfer to those places ?The recent events in Gaza are probably a good indication of what could and would happen. Note that, no one wants to take responsibility for what the people in Gaza and West Bank do to Israel.

I don't think there should be any territory given back. I think what should happen now is what should have happened during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. I think there should be one final fight for the land of Israel and the victor gets to keep it and kick out the vanquished (if the victor so chooses). If Israelis really want Eretz Yisrael, they should fight for it, fight mercilessly until all their enemies are vanquished and then make peace with those they have vanquished. It is the same response I have always promulgated: Let those who want to fight to the death do so.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I wonder if all this would be happening, if the Arabs had agreed with the U.N. partition plan to begin with and not attacked the Jewish state at all?

Probably not. But the only way for the Arabs to have "agreed" with the U.N. partition plan is if they were all soundly beaten in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. And that did not happen.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

So who do you think is to blame for starting it then?

The founders of Israel for not respecting "the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in [the former] Palestine" AND the surrounding Arab countries for not fighting the Arab-Israeli War to the end.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

and what was their motivation/intention ?

The nascent Israeli government wanted a Jewish homeland at all cost.
The surrounding Arab countries wanted an Arab Palestine at all cost.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I'm pretty sure that when Israel got independence it was not the goals of the Jews to wipe the muslim world off the map

I agree. I don't think the nascent state of Israel wanted "to wipe the muslim world off the map". But I do think they wanted to wipe the muslim world off the map* in the section of the world where they wanted Israel to be. (*by forcing them to move to other parts of the Arab world not by killing them all.)

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

...why shouldnt they be afforded the same respect by the muslim world?

That depends on whether or not you think the actions of the nascent state of Israel were or were not respectful of the Arabs (Christian and Muslim) in the former British Mandate of Palestine. I think the Israelis and their Arab neighbors need to keep fighting until they run out of people to fight.


What I would really like to see happen is for the Israelis to throw out all the non-Jewish residents of Israel, be they citizens or not, and make Israel truly a home for the Jewish believers of the world. I would like to see Israel re-claim the West Bank and Gaza Strip, force out all the non-Jews and then fight off anyone and everyone of her neighbors who seek to attack Israel. There would be lots and lots of fighting that would result in lots of death on both sides--with Israel probably having to go nuclear to "make a point" about its willingness to win at all cost--but then the war would end and the victor, Israel, would be able to make sole claim to its territory. And the surrounding Arab countries would either have been forced to accept the existence of Israel or have been destroyed in the conflict. Again, I don't care one way or the other. I just want there to be a battle to declare, once and for all, who is/will be the "owner" of the land on which the state of Israel currently resides.

[Hawkeye_a]

Wow. thats kinda ........ extreme....... even for me.

Dude, if thats what actually happens.... it'll be armageddon.

If im not mistaken, regarding Israel breaking the U.N. resolution by expelling some Arabs from a couple of villages, that kinda thing was done by militias on both sides before Israel declared Independence. right ? I'm not saying it was right by either side to do.....(ie a land grab), but it kinda negates the 'legal claim' imo. It's not like 'Palestine' was even a 'country' that was controlled by a government at that point anyway. That's the legal angle anyway.

If a war like the one you describe does happen, Israel would have to worry about Syria, Turkey, Iran and Egypt. The militaries of the other muslim nations in the neighborhood are pretty pathetic. And seeing as how Israel has diplomatic relations with Turkey(who probably maintains it because they are so desperate to be considered 'Europeans') and Egypt, the main threat is Iran. Although i suspect that even Jordan, Egypt and Turkey would gladly turn against Israel to side with their 'muslim bothers', as public pressure would demand it.

As far as gaza and the W.bank, its ridiculous how much aid Israel pours into those territories trying to nurture an economy and a stable state, just so they can finally leave and have nothing more to do with these 'refugees', yet they are so incapable of doing anything for themselves, despite all the aid that comes in courtesy of the oil rich Arabs and Israel. Pathetic i tell you.

An alternate scenario would be Jordan getting jurisdiction over the W.Bank and Egypt over Gaza and them incorporating the 'refugees' with the help of the U.N.. But obviously that wont happen because those territories and the people in them are just proxies for the muslim world to fight the non-muslim state. (An almost identical problem in Kashmir, except that they arent 'refugees' since ~1bn indians can outnumber the Kashmiris and maintain a Hindu state, but its the same since it's a territorial dispute (is anyone surprised at this point?)).

If 'Peace' is the goal in this conflict, i see the Israelis going above and beyond to try and get it.

If 'total domination' is the goal in the conflict, i see the Arabs doing all they can to achieve it. Luckily for the israelis they have the best armed forces this world has ever seen.

And, just for the record, i don't think expelling all the non Jews from Israel is in character for the Israelis. I do think they need, imo, to have one set of laws and requirements of all citizens irrespective of religion, especially when it deals with declaring allegiance and serving in the armed forces. And be able to grant citizenship to whomever they choose.

Going through this entire discussion and others like it, reading and watching the news from various sources, i find it funny that not once a single arab-muslim leader has come out and declared any of these militant muslim groups "terrorists" and outlawed them. Sad that the so called 'moderates' side with them. Yet the Israelis have no problem declaring Jewish militant groups that commit crimes, terrorists and outlawing them in their quest for peace. It's pretty admirable. (if someone has a source that proves otherwise, please post).

Cheers

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I never said you suggested any such thing. I simply asked a question regarding what you thought was a reason for Israel to exist. And you answered my question.

Show me where you asked me what I thought was a reason for Israel to exist please.

I never claimed that you said "suffering = entitlement to land", did I?

You mentioned this three times in one post and even clarified that it does NOT as if I was in need of your clarification.

I asked a question which you answered in the paragraph above.

You asked me nothing. I was responding to ratm's post and you took it upon yourself to address me with the same strawman three times in one post.

I asked if you believed "suffering = entitlement to land" and you said no. You said the Israelis have "a right to the territory because they fought to take it and fought to maintain it". So, now I have an answer as to why you think Israel should have the land it is on.

You didn't ask me anything at all. What you said in a smarmy tone was; "If you think horrific collective suffering = entitled to land as compensation please tell me how you would feel about giving back major chunks of land in the United States to the native communities here that we decimated in our past?"

So... to recap;
- you asked me nothing.
- you used a classic strawman three times in one post.
- you used the strawman as a means of challenging me with a related, absurd hypothetical.
- you have no point at all.

Just want to make sure we're perfectly clear here. For future reference, any attempt to equate the plight of the Native Americans to the situation in Israel will only make the Arabs in the Middle East appear 5 times more cruel than the US government. This comes up from time to time in discussions on Israel and it'd be nice if the message would eventually sink in.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You didn't ask me anything at all.

Here's a hint for you, this ( ? ) is a piece of punctuation that indicates the person speaking is asking a question. I would quote the passage where I used such a piece of punctuation, but you did me a favor by quoting it for me in your own post. Here it is below.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What you said in a smarmy tone was; "If you think horrific collective suffering = entitled to land as compensation please tell me how you would feel about giving back major chunks of land in the United States to the native communities here that we decimated in our past?"

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... to recap;
- you asked me nothing.

Umm, I asked you if you thought "horrific collective suffering = entitled to land as compensation" which you answered by saying no, you thought might = right when you said "They have a right [the right-hand side of the equation] to the territory because they fought to take it and fought to maintain it [the left-hand side of the equation]".

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- you used a classic strawman three times in one post.

I phrased my questions three times in the post.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- you used the strawman as a means of challenging me with a related, absurd hypothetical.

Unrelated to the immediate topic? Yes. Related to your possible overall mindset if in fact you were an advocate of "horrific collective suffering = entitled to land as compensation"? YES! (It would show a consistency of logic in regards to your feelings.) Except it turns out you are not an advocate for such a policy so it becomes an irrelevant tangent in our debate on the issue.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- you have no point at all.

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
Are you trying to make me feel like the guy on the receiving end of a curt dismissal from a superior? If so? Nice try. It didn't work. But it did make me laugh.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Just want to make sure we're perfectly clear here. For future reference, any attempt to equate the plight of the Native Americans to the situation in Israel will only make the Arabs in the Middle East appear 5 times more cruel than the US government. This comes up from time to time in discussions on Israel and it'd be nice if the message would eventually sink in.

Umm, I made no such comparison about the levels of cruelty. In fact, you were the one who came up with numbers in regards to population percentages and numbers of displaced/dispossessed as indicators of cruelty. My original question was all about attitude regarding a possible reason for you to think "Jewish history [from] 60 years ago" is more important than "Arabian history [from] 40 years ago. I questioned if you thought "horrific collective suffering = entitled to land as compensation"? And followed up with another question regarding a similar situation? Had you answered yes to the original question and answered yes to the follow-up question it would have shown a consistency of thought, a consistency of logic in regards to your feelings about this topic. Except it turns out you are not an advocate for such a policy so it becomes an irrelevant tangent in our debate on the issue.


So, let me ask you now another question. You have stated that you think might = right (my paraphrase of your statement "They have a right to the territory because they fought to take it [had the might] and fought to maintain it [had the might]".)

If the Arab countries surrounding Israel ganged up on Israel and defeated the government in war and kept the (hypothetically) insurgent Israelis from ever successfully regaining control of the land of Israel, would you argue that the (hypothetically) conquering Arab countries "have a right to the territory because they fought to take it and fought to maintain it"?

Again, no strawman here. I am simply trying to determine if you would apply consistently the logic of your arguments. If your argument that fighting for a territory and fighting to maintain a territory entitle the fighters to make claims of "ownership" against said territory I want to see if you would apply that logic in a consistent manner.


You see, all of this is getting at one's consistency of logic. You are an excellent, dispassionate debater in the PWL but on the topic of Israel I suspect you have a pro-Israel bias that clouds your otherwise excellent displays of logic. So, my questions serve to determine if your statements regarding Israel really are based in a consistent, logical intellectual framework--that you think your logical arguments would apply regardless of circumstances--or if they are based in emotional favoritism towards Israel. And I have enough respect for you and your logic that I know you will answer truthfully, even if you were to have to admit to having to having a pro-Israel bias.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Here's a hint for you, this ( ? ) is a piece of punctuation that indicates the person speaking is asking a question. I would quote the passage where I used such a piece of punctuation, but you did me a favor by quoting it for me in your own post. Here it is below.

Great then I've got a bunch of questions for you to answer like; "if you think kicking little puppy dogs is okay, please tell me how you are going to pay for all of them to be treated?" If you were asking me a question dcmacdaddy, it was a patently disingenuous one.

Umm, I asked you if you thought "horrific collective suffering = entitled to land as compensation" which you answered by saying no, you thought might = right when you said "They have a right [the right-hand side of the equation] to the territory because they fought to take it and fought to maintain it [the left-hand side of the equation]".

Wrong. You assumed a position for me, then offered a question to challenge the reasoning of such a position. Read your post again. If this was an error on your part just admit you lacked clarity. Otherwise, it's a classic strawman.

I phrased my questions three times in the post.

Three questions dcmacdaddy? But I only see one (?).

Here's a hint for you, this ( ? ) is a piece of punctuation that indicates the person speaking is asking a question.

Unrelated to the immediate topic? Yes. Related to your possible overall mindset if in fact you were an advocate of "horrific collective suffering = entitled to land as compensation"? YES! (It would show a consistency of logic in regards to your feelings.) Except it turns out you are not an advocate for such a policy so it becomes an irrelevant tangent in our debate on the issue.

The sooner you'd kindly refrain from espousing irrelevant tangents, the sooner we can engage honest discourse.

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
Are you trying to make me feel like the guy on the receiving end of a curt dismissal from a superior? If so? Nice try. It didn't work. But it did make me laugh.

No. I'm using your posts to illustrate pointlessness. This most recent post is perhaps the best yet. Better luck next post.

Umm, I made no such comparison about the levels of cruelty. In fact, you were the one who came up with numbers in regards to population percentages and numbers of displaced/dispossessed as indicators of cruelty.

After you assumed a position for me, you asked me how I'd feel about giving back major chunks of land in the United States to the native communities here that we decimated in our past. I explained to you that we've given back 5 times more territory than the Arabs in the Middle East seemed willing to allow the Israelis. I then expressed sincere hope that this wasn't the point you were trying to make.

My original question was all about attitude regarding a possible reason for you to think "Jewish history [from] 60 years ago" is more important than "Arabian history [from] 40 years ago. I questioned if you thought "horrific collective suffering = entitled to land as compensation"? And followed up with another question regarding a similar situation? Had you answered yes to the original question and answered yes to the follow-up question it would have shown a consistency of thought, a consistency of logic in regards to your feelings about this topic. Except it turns out you are not an advocate for such a policy so it becomes an irrelevant tangent in our debate on the issue.

Often times (including discussions on Israel) I will challenge the conflicted ideology of those I'm debating such as when Taliesin mentioned the small amount of territory actually purchased by Israelis in an effort to marginalize their right to inhabit the region. I asked how much land Arabians had purchased and why by this logic, they should inhabit any portion of the region. Ratm had mentioned that the Jewish plight of 60 years ago gives them no right to the land and I challenged this view by sarcastically (to establish rapport with the belligerent) offering that of course, the Arab plight of 40 years ago should somehow be regarded as more legitimate.

If the Arab countries surrounding Israel ganged up on Israel and defeated the government in war and kept the (hypothetically) insurgent Israelis from ever successfully regaining control of the land of Israel, would you argue that the (hypothetically) conquering Arab countries "have a right to the territory because they fought to take it and fought to maintain it"?

Yes. If the surrounding Arab countries are able to unite long enough to conquer Israel, taking the entire region as the spoils of war through Israel's nuclear capability and the might of her allies; they will have satisfied the very means of land ownership that have defined the history of every ruling faction known to mankind. The Israelis would have no choice, but to relent to sensibility or face endless struggle. This is the way of things.

Again, no strawman here. I am simply trying to determine if you would apply consistently the logic of your arguments. If your argument that fighting for a territory and fighting to maintain a territory entitle the fighters to make claims of "ownership" against said territory I want to see if you would apply that logic in a consistent manner.

It's not a matter of whether or not I'd like to apply the logic in a consistent manner, it is in fact the way of things.

You see, all of this is getting at one's consistency of logic. You are an excellent, dispassionate debater in the PWL but on the topic of Israel I suspect you have a pro-Israel bias that clouds your otherwise excellent displays of logic. So, my questions serve to determine if your statements regarding Israel really are based in a consistent, logical intellectual framework--that you think your logical arguments would apply regardless of circumstances--or if they are based in emotional favoritism towards Israel. And I have enough respect for you and your logic that I know you will answer truthfully, even if you were to have to admit to having to having a pro-Israel bias.

A pro-this or that bias will often be subject to arbitrary definitions by others with a bias of their own or sometimes those incapable of standing behind any view.

Points like; "Let them keep on fighting until they are tired of fighting or they are all dead." are non-points. IMO, they show me a blatant disregard for the history of a region wrought with failed "land-for-peace" arrangements. An inability to see a thing for what it is and take a stand, an intellectual copout. I'm often amazed when one spends so much energy defending a non-point.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If you were asking me a question dcmacdaddy, it was a patently disingenuous one.

There was not the slightest bit of disingenuous intent in that question. I already explained why I asked it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The sooner you'd kindly refrain from espousing irrelevant tangents, the sooner we can engage honest discourse.

Nothing irrelevant about it. As I said already, it was part of a means to determine how consistent you are with your logic.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yes. If the surrounding Arab countries are able to unite long enough to conquer Israel, taking the entire region as the spoils of war through Israel's nuclear capability and the might of her allies; they will have satisfied the very means of land ownership that have defined the history of every ruling faction known to mankind. The Israelis would have no choice, but to relent to sensibility or face endless struggle. This is the way of things.

Good to see you are logically consistent.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Points like; "Let them keep on fighting until they are tired of fighting or they are all dead." are non-points. IMO, they show me a blatant disregard for the history of a region wrought with failed "land-for-peace" arrangements. An inability to see a thing for what it is and take a stand, an intellectual copout. I'm often amazed when one spends so much energy defending a non-point.

It is absolutely my stand on the issue. I don't care about "land for peace". I care about the resolution of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. It seems to me if both sides had fought that battle to the finish we would have had a decisive victor and there would not be this internecine warfare that's been going on for decades. I really do want there to be continued fighting "until they are tired of fighting or they are all dead." I want there to be continued conflict until one side categorically triumphs over the other, either through surrender of one side ("they are tired of fighting") or through death of all the fighters.

Just to reiterate and be as explicit as possible. I want there to be continued fighting between the Israelis and the Palestinians (who serve as proxies for some of Israel's other neighbors too afraid to openly wage warfare on her) until either side is soundly victorious in battle. I don't care who is the victor, Israel or her Arab neighbors (although I assume it would be Israel due to her nuclear capabilities).

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

It is absolutely my stand on the issue. I don't care about "land for peace". I care about the resolution of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. It seems to me if both sides had fought that battle to the finish we would have had a decisive victor and there would not be this internecine warfare that's been going on for decades. I really do want there to be continued fighting "until they are tired of fighting or they are all dead." I want there to be continued conflict until one side categorically triumphs over the other, either through surrender of one side ("they are tired of fighting") or through death of all the fighters.

There is no acceptable termination of this struggle in that region by conventional means because the Palestinians are being used as pawns, because of international pressure on Israel, and because of woefully naive attempts at peace. One will not accept the others' right to exist and the other is not willing whether by political pressure or humanitarianism, to wipe a people from the face of the earth or in the least attempt to expel them to the surrounding Arab nations. Arab nations I might add, that want nothing to do with the Palestinian people-everything to do with their shared goals. This is the struggle today. The fighting in that region is done from among non-fighters. The weaponry in that region is stored in mosques and in neighborhoods. Your solution is a non-solution and thus your point IMO is a non-point and worse, arguably crazy. I understand the frustration inherent in the attitude not unlike watching two kids fight over a sandbox, but they simply won't fight until they're all dead. This is how it is going to be until the Palestinians relent to sensibility. Israel has a vastly superior system of governance and an even more capable military, but as with many successful powers they try to maneuver through international pressure to appear humane. People expect more from Israel which is interesting considering what we're asking them to endure every week.

Just to reiterate and be as explicit as possible. I want there to be continued fighting between the Israelis and the Palestinians (who serve as proxies for some of Israel's other neighbors too afraid to openly wage warfare on her) until either side is soundly victorious in battle. I don't care who is the victor, Israel or her Arab neighbors (although I assume it would be Israel due to her nuclear capabilities).

In this we seem to agree to an extent, but the era of fighting 'til death was ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's just where we're at today. Hopefully, there are socio-economic solutions to the plight of the Palestinians. Something they will want to protect more than the antagonistic notions of the stone age. In the meantime, I'm with Hawkeye_a;
- land for peace does not work.
- All citizens of Israel, whether Jewish, Muslim or Christian should swear allegiance to Israel and anyone who does not should be stripped of all voting rights and citizenship.
- Palestinians must relent to sensibility. If they do, they will live in peace and eventual prosperity under a superior governing rule. A democracy that allows for freedom of worship and encourages prosperity. If they do not, they will continue to fall prey to the stone aged tactics of their leadership. Their struggle will be never-ending. That's just the way of things.

[Big Mac]

Very well said, ebuddy.

Interestingly, I'm now thinking of un-ignoring dcmacdaddy because he's starting to make more than a measure of sense in his own right. Unfortunately, Israel as we know it doesn't have the political will to do that which must be done to truly end the Arab-Israeli conflict.

[Hawkeye_a]

A follow up on one of my earlier posts about the Davos discussion on the Gaza, here's the official video of the entire discussion including all speakers:

Davos Annual Meeting 2009 - Gaza: The Case for Middle East Peace

Cheers

[Weyland-Yutani]

I think Israel should be even more decisive in ending this and I don't mean by negotiating.

[Chongo]

This should make this... interesting to say the least.
FT.com / Middle East / Politics & Society - Iran holds enough uranium for bomb

Iran has built up a stockpile of enough enriched uranium for one nuclear bomb, United Nations officials acknowledged on Thursday.

In a development that comes as the Obama administration is drawing up its policy on negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear programme, UN officials said Iran had produced more nuclear material than previously thought.

They said Iran had accumulated more than one tonne of low enriched uranium hexafluoride at a facility in Natanz.

If such a quantity were further enriched it could produce more than 20kg of fissile material – enough for a bomb.

[Hawkeye_a]

Just found this very interesting doco on YouTube. It's narrated by Abba Eban and goes through the entire history of modern Israel. I found it very informative to hear about the events from one of the 'founders' of Israel.

You need to navigate to the list of videos to find them.

YouTube - IsaacKasabian's Channel

Enjoy.

[Hawkeye_a]

Nethanyahu's recent speech, after Obama addressed the Muslim world in Cairo the week before, brought about some radical changes in policy imo.

Addressing the issue of a Palestinian State, requiring it to be demilitarized one ,having no control over it's airspace, and which recognizes Israel as the Jewish State with Jerusalem as it's capital.

I'm all for a demilitarized Palestinian State, which recognizes Israel and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, as a Jewish State.

That being said, i dont think asking the Palestinians to give up rights to their airspace is feasible or even 'fair'.

Either way, this opens the door for negotiations, and im sure this is a huge step for the conservative Israeli leader.

Considering the Palestinians have nothing to bargain with, and the fact that they could not strike a deal with the previous government of Israel.... i suggest they consider this offer seriously. If they still want to stick to their 'all or nothing' plan, they might as well kiss a state goodbye. I recommend they take what they are given at this point, and work from there in the future.

Discuss.

[Chongo]

As has been mentioned before, There already is a "Palestinian State" and it is called Jordan. Jordan gave up it's claim to the West Bank territory in July of 1988, six years before the treaty with Israel.
Jordan's West Bank Move Upsetting Daily Life - The New York Times

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

As has been mentioned before, There already is a "Palestinian State" and it is called Jordan. Jordan gave up it's claim to the West Bank territory in July of 1988, six years before the treaty with Israel.
Jordan's West Bank Move Upsetting Daily Life - The New York Times

Well then, the Israeli government needs to forcibly remove to Jordan all Palestinians from their territories. I wonder why they haven't done this yet?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Nethanyahu's recent speech, after Obama addressed the Muslim world in Cairo the week before, brought about some radical changes in policy imo.

Addressing the issue of a Palestinian State, requiring it to be demilitarized one ,having no control over it's airspace, and which recognizes Israel as the Jewish State with Jerusalem as it's capital.

I'm all for a demilitarized Palestinian State, which recognizes Israel and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, as a Jewish State.

That being said, i dont think asking the Palestinians to give up rights to their airspace is feasible or even 'fair'.

Given your unapologetically righteous stance on the conflict in general, Hawkeye, I'm a bit surprised to see your stance on the airspace issue. Granting a state of Hamastan airspace rights would give that would-be terrorist state the ability to bomb Israel at will either directly or by proxy by granting another hostile country (take your pick) fly-over rights. Demands for airspace is perhaps the biggest security deal-breaker for Israel.

Netanyahu's speech was about as good as any of us could have hoped. He discussed Israel's willingness to live in peace if it had a partner that would abide by the terms of a just peace. The problem is, Arab occupiers don't want peace. They want Israel in pieces. Given that reality, Netanyahu gave the world a new vision of a two-state (actually three state) solution that Israel could live with. The stipulations are more than reasonable, make no mistake. The land that the Arab "Palestinians" squat on, occupy, launch rockets from, and orchestrate other attacks from is absolutely part of the eternal homeland of the Jewish people. Israel has paid in the modern era for all of that land in the numerous defensive wars it has been forced to wage. What would be pushing it would be for Israel to pursue Greater Israel. Even the least amount of land from the era of Joshua HaNavi on is much larger than what Israel holds today. So the terms are reasonable, just not to the Arabs, who balk at any one of them (let alone all of them as a package).

Arafat, YM"SH, had the best possible deals in 2000-2001 when Ehud Barak was prepared to give away the farm. Arafat refused them even though for a long time he had been pursuing a phased destruction of Israel, and accepting a deal would have furthered his scheme.

Netanyahu's return to power came with a clear mandate not to sell Israel out as he did the first time around in the 1990s. He delivered with this speech probably the strongest stance he could have taken and deserves a tremendous amount of credit for not buckling to international pressure so easily. And importantly, he rebuked Obama for his implication that Israel exists only because of the Holocaust, which is a jihadist talking point. Obama's abject failure to recognize even in a minor way the nation of Israel's historical and religious claims to the land of Israel was a cold, calculated and blatant slap in the face to Judaism and Jewry worldwide. But the citizens of Israel and their political leader stood up to the king of the American empire. Let us rejoice - Bibi has a backbone this time, at least for now. May God continue to keep his spine straight. And Obama seems somewhat mollified by the speech, for now.

I'm much more confident now. I think I can very faintly see the redemption of humanity coming in our days. Halleluyah!

[Hawkeye_a]

Big Mac,
With regard to control of airspace.... i was thinking more in terms of civilian passenger aircraft, if a Arab-Palestinian state does come to be, i assume that would be a 'right'. Assuming the state is demilitarized i dont think military activity should be an issue, but who knows.

In my opinion, i dont think Israel should give up any more land to the Palestinians. They can form a state on the west bank and gaza if they wish, and thats it. if they refuse (which they ALWAYS will, as pointed out) they can continue to be self proclaimed refugees for eternity for all i care.

There is a deliberate reason why Jordan nor Egypt accepts responsibility for those territories..... they are obviously proxies, and if either Jordan or Egypt took them into their jurisdiction, they would no longer be 'refugees'.

Personally, i'm still amazed that Netanyahu even uttered the phrase 'two-state'. He should have, imo held out on that for longer. He seems to want to veer to the left, when imo he should have stuck firmly to the right... especially when you have a liberal president who, is more interested in Arab approval, in the white house.

By yeah, when it comes to actual tangible progress.... the Palestinians as always will have nothing to bargain with, will be unwilling to compromise and will reject any offer Israel makes. (ie it will never be enough until Israel is not on the map for them).

Cheers

[Big Mac]

Oh I see. When Israel talks about control over airspace it's talking about the military context.

Netanyahu referred in passing to "two states" because the world, including the United States, has been calling for that outcome since the mid-1990s. Netanyahu mentioned it to reframe the debate closer to Israel's terms. He had to acknowledge the problem and deal with it (the two state delusion) rather than pretend it didn't exist. He did it quite adeptly.

In a better world he wouldn't have had to mention two states at all. In that alternate reality he would have said that all the land that the state of Israel holds, including its territories belong to the people of Israel and that the two state solution already exists: Israel for Jews and Jordan for the Arabs. Or if they don't like Jordan, they can go to any of the other Arab states or the wider Muslim world. That's what would have been ideal, but what Netanyahu delivered was the best we could have hoped for. He also definitively shut the door on the so-called refugees getting to destroy Israel after the creation of Hamastan. (How rich it is that the Arabists expect Israel to give them land for a terror state that has been made judenrein by ethnic cleansing of Jews and then, on top of that, to also let millions of Arabs stream into Israel. Not the newly created Hamastan, Israel. What objective-minded person could possibly think that equitable?)

This was not a perfect speech by any means, but it was far better than what has come out of an Israeli PM at any time post-Oslo. It's the type of speech Netanyahu should have delivered the first time around as PM in 1996.

[PB2K]

after 60 years the country failed to become even the slightest friends with it's neighbours.. i've gotten sick and tired of news coming from that area.

[Big Mac]

Actually, Israel has peace treaties (such as they are) with Egypt and Jordan. But I guess you're rightt - we evil Jooz can't be friends with noonez.