Where Am I Wrong About Palestine?

Tyler, if we could please take one point at a time without such a volley of multiple points of debate. I've been tending toward multiplicity too. I think this thread would be more worthwhile thus. It has been worthwhile already, and I really do appreciate participating here.

Let's try to focus, and not blur one issue at a time. I could suggest one to start, but will be happy for you to choose: I would prefer something we've already touched on, but has been buried because the conversation keeps branching out.

If you like.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Suggest away, hypewaders. I'll take next volley.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Reading the anti-Semitism and thinly veiled hatred on this thread shows just how little has been accomplished in the direction of peace.

For those of you who are trying to speak factually and with reason to islamic zealots you may notice that it's like a puppy chasing it's tail, pointless. Attempting to discuss the actual history, economics and politics of the region with those blinded by hatred is an endeavor I rarely engage in now.

The nations around Israel teach hatred and contempt for the Jewish people. There's been no indication from the majority of these oppressive regimes that anything less than the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of the Jewish people will suffice.

It's been suggested that the only country left in the world that would intervene to stop the slaughter of the Jews in Israel is the United States. If that is truely the case I must say, if I had to pick..that would be the nation I would choose.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK, TadpoleTerror has introduced a focus point: Let's agree that Israel's neighbors are unhappy with her (for the sake of argument, that Arab neighbors are further increasing their antipathy as time goes on). Let's further assume for the sake of argument that the United States, perhaps through economic crisis and a shift in energy sourcing, loses ability and will to exert power in the Middle East. Could it be possible that Israelis are making friends with the wrong people? In my local dealings, I make whatever effort is required to get along well with my neighbors. My best and most influencial friends don't live next door, and I would not expect them to intercede for me in a confrontation with a neighbor. "Bad" neighborhoods improve through unilateral acts that build trust, and third-party (police) intervention where order must be restored. I believe this is common sense. If this principle does not apply here, please explain. If it does, what is Israel going to do about it? Hopefully without branching the thread too much, can you explain what other choice does Israel really have in the long run: Is not the alternative to building peace to commit genocide and live under seige? America's influence will wane, and Israel will endure only by being accepted into the imperfect community of Mideastern countries. Please explain what the Israeli government is doing to build the relationships Israel needs to survive.

 

Please explain why Israel should trust any process that does not guarantee defensible borders. Please explain why it's somehow rational and noble for Israel to be 'nice' to the hostile and numerically superior Arab regimes, and somehow equally rational and presumed noble for the "Palestinians" to perpetrate endless acts of terrorism in Israel.

In the absence of strong defensible borders and strong military deterrence, Israel would be destroyed by its neighbors in a matter of months.

 

OK, you just described the hate on both sides again, C-A. Not in dispute: We are talking about solutions here, please try again:

Please explain what the Israeli government is doing to build the relationships Israel needs to survive.

 

I reject the premise of your argument Hype. Your suggesting that the nation of Israel has somehow acted as the aggressor in most of these conflicts. That's simply not the case, don't confuse the victor with the aggressor. I would agree that Israel has made policy and military mistakes (as any country uder duress would).

Your meandering analgoy of "neighborhoods" lost me. Are you suggestint that friendship can't rightfully exist between countries who do not geographiclly border each other? Also, you made this silly statement "<FONT COLOR=BLACK><FONT SIZE=2><FONT FACE="TIMES NEW ROMAN"><I>In my local dealings, I make whatever effort is required to get along well with my neighbors</I></FONT></FONT></FONT>" What if your neighbors were bent on raping your spouse and killing your children? You would just open the door? It's hard to "do whatever it takes" when your neighbor is bent on your destruction!

Referring to a UN resolution is wasted typing if the intention is to provide a moral or ethical basis for any argument. The UN is an anti-Semitic, anti-American and anti freedom organization. Your talking about an international body that appointed Libya to the head of its commission on Human Rights and was going to allow Iraq to head the commission on disamrament for goodness sakes! What a hoax! (Ooops, I started droning.. sorry)

 

"Your meandering analgoy of "neighborhoods" lost me."
Then I apologize. Let's say you are standing in the center of a crowd of 6 nasty Arabs, who are threatening you. Let's imagine your choices are only 3 initially: 1) You can hit someone, and take a defensive posture. 2) You can call on a very burly American friend who is standing on the corner (these are the only 2 options Israel has prepared so far) or 3) Call on 10 armed policemen who have been ordered to protect you and the Arabs from each other. I mentioned this third option in my last post, but perhaps you missed it in my meandering analogy. I'm sorry.

"It's hard to "do whatever it takes" when your neighbor is bent on your destruction!"
No, not if you include in "whatever it takes" a position that Israel has nothing to hide from the world; will request multilateral help in solving this stupid mess; that ethnic cleansing stops on both sides.

"Your suggesting that the nation of Israel has somehow acted as the aggressor in most of these conflicts."
Perhaps I have, but I should avoid it, because it really is not the point. What importance is there in recognizing the more or less aggressive aggressor? You don't win a prize.

"The UN is an anti-Semitic, anti-American and anti freedom organization.
Please substantiate.

 

"Let's agree that Israel's neighbors are unhappy with her (for the sake of argument, that Arab neighbors are further increasing their antipathy as time goes on)."

I'd say 'unhappy' is a gross understatement.


"If this principle does not apply here, please explain."

You left out a very important variable. Tadpole roughly described this.


"Hopefully without branching the thread too much, can you explain what other choice does Israel really have in the long run: Is not the alternative to building peace to commit genocide and live under seige?"

And thus we return to the initial debate. The point is that peace is not, at the moment, Israel's choice. As I've illustrated Arafat is the one in power of negotiation for Palestine. Arafat for 30 years has desired two things Israel will not give him. Peace negotiations were attempted three years ago. Arafat should no sign of letting up on these demands and, when they weren't met, launched the intifada.

I would like you to illustrate how peace is Israel's choice. I've asked you already; if you were Sharon what would you do?


"Please explain what the Israeli government is doing to build the relationships Israel needs to survive."

There's little they can do. Jordan and Lebanon really aren't a problem anymore. Egypt and Israel made peace, and I'm going to use this as the example of how the Palestine conflict needs to be resolved. Egypt had demands, Israel had desires - they both gave a little on either side. Peace.

I've got to run for the moment, so sorry for this being short

 

Here we go in multiple branches again, but OK

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ConsequentAtheist:
"Please explain why Israel should trust any process that does not guarantee defensible borders."
I did not elaborate on any process that does not not guarantee defensible borders. However, I might ask you, "Does the process Israel is pursuing guarantee defensible borders?" We both know it does not.

You can feel safer with a simple but effective process. Jews must talk with Arabs. Jews and Arabs must see each others simply as neighbors again. It is ridiculous to say there will be no peace while there is Al-Aqsa Brigade and Hamas. There will still be Hamas, or some mutation of it's guiding emotion, and the IDF when Jews and Arabs finally have had enough and end political support for the violence. Then Arabs will depoose and dismantle their hate groups, and Israel will depose and dismantle hers.

I fear that the Jewish and Arab majorities will through obstinance drag their peoples through considerably more hell before making the inevitable turn from confrontation to reconciliaton. Unconditional US handouts to Israel could falter, when the US gets badly mauled economically and politically in new Mideastern fiasco. More senseless murder will escalate between Jews and non-Jewish Arabs before the alternative gains more momentum. An third-party peacekeeping / policing force will be instrumental in the transition- Don't discount the potintial for the UN to come through a shakedown stronger and with a less corrupted mandate.

The solution is communication and the nurturing of respect. Both sides must control their own fears. I'm going flying now, but look forward to continuing this discussion.

Shalom.

 

For some reason you tend to forget that Israel HAVE signed peace with Jordan and Egypt. And gave back ALL the land it took in 1967 till the last CM.

But then maybe these countries signed it to get US $, the same thing Israel is repteadly accused on doing?

Go back to trade figures, look at the tourists movments betwen Israel -Egypt and Israel - Jordan and you will find out it is going in one direction only, from Israel out.

As an Israeli, I am amazed how little understanding there is to the Israeli mind and Israeli Psychology. When Sadat came to the Kneset and gave his speech he could have been elected to become the Israeli PM on the same day, and the same is true with King Hussain. The reason is that these people looked at the Israeli public in the eye, as men of peace .

 

"For some reason you tend to forget that Israel HAVE signed peace with Jordan and Egypt.
I applaud it. It was a start.

"But then maybe these countries signed it to get US $, the same thing Israel is repteadly accused on doing?
How can you be bitter about these peace accords? Egypt's considerable aid is difficult to compare, bribery could be considered a factor, it is certainly less military in nature. Israel is not bribed by American taxpayers- her garrison stance is propped up by them.

"Go back to trade figures, look at the tourists movments betwen Israel -Egypt and Israel - Jordan and you will find out it is going in one direction only, from Israel out.
Impersonate an Arab in Israel and see how good a "holiday" you have.

"When Sadat came to the Kneset and gave his speech he could have been elected to become the Israeli PM on the same day, and the same is true with King Hussain. The reason is that these people looked at the Israeli public in the eye, as men of peace [
Exactly! That's why Israel will choose peace. Along the way , they will elect a peacemaker; will cease escalation; will ask the world for security help, not more weapons to use on Palestinians.

"As an Israeli, I am amazed how little understanding there is to the Israeli mind and Israeli Psychology"
Why be amazed? Israelis live under one of the most withdrawn, reactionary, and militant governments in the world, in a nation displaying a put-on pleasant face for Caucasians, and a war mask for Palestinians. How could the people of Israel be easy to know under these circumstances?

What a wonderful place it will be when Israelis stop reacting only to their fears, and begin to really live in the Middle East. I have relished the company of Israelis whenever I have met them away from the Middle East. How wonderful it's going to be when they can relax at home in Israel too, right along with their Palestinian cousins.

 

A good question, and one which I will gladly pursue once we reach consensus on the need for defensible borders, and, given this requirement, where those borders might be.

 

http://www.islam-online.net/english/News/2003-02/23/article16.shtml

 

A more balanced view!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2790351.stm

 

mohamed

Here is some of the so-called “qualified” counseling:

We are not discouraging people from considering becoming a second wife because under Islamic teachings, and under certain conditions, it is an option allowed by Allah!

So, make du’a to Allah to give you patience, perseverance, and solace. Come to terms with what Allah Most High has in store for you. Let Allah’s plan unfold for you. Ensha’Allah, with your du’a, Allah Most High will grant you a husband who is a blessing for your faith, family and future. And Allah Knows best.

As you know everything we do is a prayer, so let us pray that you make the right decision with an open heart for you and your family.

Al-hamdu-Lillah, you seem to have caught yourself and know what you did was not the right thing to do. You have also repented to Allah (s.w.t) and are worried about His displeasure. Allah (s.w.t.) likes those who, when they commit a sin, repent quickly. So, ensha’Allah, His Mercy will be upon you.

So, get nearer to Allah, try to talk to Him in your prayers, read the teachings from Him, ask for His help, be close to Him in your heart and for sure, ensha’Allah, things will start becoming clearer and easier for you.

And so on…

 

* Finally, we want you to give serious thought to the options that are available to you. You have been a Muslim for a year and should spend time becoming more comfortable with the beliefs and practices of Islam. In addition, if at all possible, you should consider marrying a young man who has never been married before so that you can begin a new life together. Check out the background of this particular candidate and every other candidate whom you might find an interest in. Be thorough about it. Check out different sources. What is the married man's married life like? Is he happily married? Is he seeking to get married to you against the wishes of his first wife?


Moderator Edit – there is no need to quote the previous post in its entirety

 

* Finally, we want you to give serious thought to the options that are available to you. You have been a Muslim for a year and should spend time becoming more comfortable with the beliefs and practices of Islam.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even more rubbish!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

ConsequentAtheist:"...we reach consensus on the need for defensible borders, and, given this requirement, where those borders might be.

Here's the Sciforums Peace Plan

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

as I have imagined it so far:

The most clearcut place to start would be a return to the 1967 borders of Israel (settlements disbanded). Of course not everyone would be happy, but instant satisfaction would not be the goal. The ultimate status of Israel/Palestine should not be finalized until hostilities of significant scale had ceased, and negotiation concluded after a deadline of 4-8 years (end of Phase 1).

This phase would require substantial, well-equipped and mandated international peacekeepers and monitors. It would require continued emphasis that the borders and status of Israel and Jerusalem are not at that point finalized- rather, phase 1 is for the cessation of hostilities, sufficient for a climate of negotiation.

Phase 1 would include limited non-retaliation: If a security lapses resulted in a terrorist attack on Israel for example, international security forces would be required to apprehend or kill the perpetrators. If international peacekeepers failed to contain a pattern of terrorist attack, Israel would have legal mechanism of authorizing well-defined IDF action and disengagement. IDF action of this kind would be subject to stringent limitations in scale and duration, and would be internationally monitored. Never would IDF units in such an operation be in a position to defy or outgun peacekeeping forces. A reciprocal mechanism would exist for Palestine, requiring the creation of a professional army, legally trained and funded by Arab governments under international monitoring (possibly trained outside Palestine, under international monitoring, the antithesis of Terrorist training camps, leading up to Phase 1). In the best case scenario, neither the IDF or Palestinian forces would ever see action again: they would be a symbolic emergency "safety valve". An assymetrical balance would be maintained with Israel always maintaining the local military advantage. I'll come back to the necessity for the Israeli advantage.

When phase 1 succeeds in creating a more secure environment, phase 2 could begin (if not, both parties would experience a return to present, violent status quo- remember Israel maintains local strategic advantage). Although a peace plan should not plan to fail, it must have a disaster plan.

Under Phase 2, Israeli and Palestinian governments are each required to constitutionally prohibit ethnic cleansing and apartheid. The status of Jerusalem would be negotiated, possibly resulting in independent and multi-faith city-statehood, funded equally by Palestine and Israel (Palestine would require international help initially to hold up it's end). All rights of return are temporarily suspended for all parties: Legal immigration stops temporarily. Final borders of Israel and Palestine would then be negotiated, along with limited restitution commitments for displaced Palestinians and descendents. At the conclusion of Phase 2, the Palestinian government is sufficiently stable to guarantee a non-aggression treaty with Israel. Reduction in international peacekeepers begins, and mandatory reduction of the IDF begins.

Israel must be allowed a military advantage in phases 1 and 2: Only war changes military balances in the short term- the intent here is to accelerate the stabilization of the Mideast without war. Israel can be influenced more predictably than an infant Palestine, and therefore their larger forces are less of a threat to peace. During phases 1 and 2, if it all falls apart, Israel stands at the end of the bloody day in the same situation as she does now. Why the imbalance? These are the facts of life, without which the process could never start. The crucial difference is that Israel becomes bound to a less provocative posture and has gradually less military freedom of action concerning Palestine.

Phase 3: Israel and Palestine, under continued international mandate, are required to implement improvement of civil rights. Inevitable cases of ethnic violence and descrimination are dealt with legally, punitively, and internally under constitutional law. In this last stage of international participation a reduction of weapons and personnel of the IDF continues to adjust the balance of power. By this stage it is possible that Israel would begin integrate into the Mideast, for instance normalizing relations with Lebanon/Syria. In other words Arab-Israeli war would become much less attractive in an integrated economy.
Conspicuously absent in this "pipe dream" is an international authority for guaranteeing stability. I expext that US intervention in the Gulf will not go well, and possible courses of events are many, some of them very ominous. If regional war somehow is avoided between the US and "fundamentalizing" and disintegrating Arab states, the US could play some role as peacemaker. If a polarizing US/Israel vs. Arab extremism conflict emerges, things will be very bleak.

In the wake of a negative outcome to US occupations, a new power structure could emerge from the EU. There is a possibility for restructuring of the UN as well, should America's fortunes trend downward. In any case, Israel will need to be weaned from US support. I believe a responsible Israeli leadership should begin acting in preparation for these contingencies now.

Because Israelis are presently the party possessing an actual state and military superiority, Israel has the onus to start this process. Present Israeli policy is counterproductive. There is far smaller risk for Israelis in putting forth a new vision, and beginning implementation (for example withdrawing all settlements) than there is on the present course.

I'm certain there are many holes in the Sciforums Plan- this first draft was a 20-minute effort. With anyone's indulgence, I think it would be an interesting thought experiment to fill them in and see what we can construct. Someone more pro-Israel than I may want to describe their own plan, and we'll see where the two may meet. It would be advantageous to establish hypothetical conditions, such as the outcome of the Intifadeh and Gulf War 2, in order to not get hopelessly confused with contingencies:

How about these arbitrary conditions: The Iraq War does not widen. The UN agrees to commit 50,000 troops including armour and air cover in support of sciforums. The Intifadeh slowly winds down as Israeli troops withdraw, but murderous episodes persist: There are unfortunately still sporadic terrorist attacks, tragedies in spite of which Israel commits to move forward through. There is no way this will be easy. Anybody want to play peacemaker? It takes more brains and courage than playing soldiers.

Shalom/Salaam