Sure I'd fight...but I sure as hell wouldn't target a bus for bombing while timing the bombing to coincide with children being on it to go to school. That's not fighting...that's a chicken sh** terrorist action no matter how you slice it. That is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. They most certainly are terrorists in the truest sense of the word. When you state they are not engaged in terrorism then you are merely trying to rationalize and excuse their actions.
This is about the only thing that I can see having any impact at all (pulling back to the 1948 line) to reduce the vitrolic hatred of Israel among some Arabs, but the Israeli's would never accept it. Also, there is a minority among militant Arabs who 'want to push Palestine back to the sea' and won't accept anything less. One of the reasons the Israeli's won't pull back to the '48 lines is that the west bank is significantly elevated above West Jerusalem and in the past has made a wonderful place upon which to set up some artilery and get a good view as you blow up the town below. If the Israelis 'seperate' forcefully with a wall and a turned back, it would seem that the area would become nothing more than a staging ground for the militant Arab eliments to build up to destroy Israel. I can't imagine the Israeli's ever being willing to give up some control of the 'back door' that is the Palestinian border with Syria, for instance.
I agree that both sides are WRONG, and whether one group is more at fault than the other truly is irrelevant. I think peace is there for a group of people with the vision and humility to see it. Giving the Palestinians their state in the occupied territories will get recognition and peace with every Arab country. The 400,000 settlers should leave and go back to Israel and the occupied territories become a state to have whatever government they choose and not a Western or Israeli puppet state. I think this is the only means to peace. As the Pro-Israel group, Refman, NJRocket and Rocketman Tex? Would you three see this as a viable situation? Israel would have recognition and peace with the Arab world, the atrocities on both sides would stop. There would be a border between the two countries that would limit contact because the pain and hate still exists and will for some time between these two groups of people. I think this is the true solution, the problem will be the extremists on both sides. The extremist Jews and Muslims will have to be quieted by the masses.
Its not irrelevant at all my friend. Its my whole point that YOU, not ME can't see both sides of the argument.
I am not pro-Israel. I have been as critical of the Israeli government as anybody. But yes...I would view that as a viable situation. Now at that point there would be a Palestinian state. Should there be any further attacks the Israelis would be completely justified in decalring all out war on that state.
A quote from Refman that is a particularly hateful attack the messenger type post. I think he has just lost it and should apologize, but I'll leave that up to him. ***** glynch-- Just when I thought you couldn't sink any lower... Quote: One does not need to be a Holocaust survivor to recognize the phrase's lethal implications. While I in NO way condone the message this is referring to...explain to me how this is in any way comparable to the Holocaust. How many Jews were bombing busses full of German children? Oh yeah...NONE!!! That is not the only reference the author of that "piece" made to Nazi Germany. It is not even comparable. For it to be comparable, the Israelis would have to: a) be building ovens to burn Palestinians; b) build gas chambers disguised as a shower in order to kill as many as possible; c) force them into hard labor and then execute them when they could work no longer; and d) force them to dig long trenches and then shoot them all so they'd fall into it and force their neighbors to fill the hole with dirt. The Israeli government has behaved in a way I strongly disagree with...but to liken this to the Holocaust is disgusting. Your excuses and rationalization for the attacks is disgusting. You and I have disagreed on many things, and until now I thought it was just that we viewed the world differently. Now I wonder if you are simply a morally bereft human being. *************** Professor Neve Gordon ,the author of the article that has the quote that Refman loses it over and cites as proof that I am a "morally bereft human being" is a Jew who lives in Israel . Is she "morally bereft human being also"? I suppose at the least Refman would refer to her as a "self-hating Jew." Neve Gordon said in her piece that the street signs advocating a proposed forceful transfer (read ethnci cleansing) of the Palestinians brought to mind thoughts of the Holocaust and Hitler. . She was trying to exlain how she didn't think a person needed the understandable extreme sensitivity toward genocidal issues of a Holocaust victim to see some resemblances. Note that for all I know since Ms. Gordon who apparently grew up in Israel, might very welll have Holocaust survivors. Perhaps Refman would like toe-mail Ms. Gordon and accuse her of being a "morally bereft human being". Neve Gordon teaches politics at Ben-Gurion University and can be reached at ngordon@bgumail.bgu.ac.il. Aside from an eagerness for a personal attack, I'm not sure what Refman is trying to say. I think it is perhaps just another version of the name calling, "anti-semite, self-hating Jew" type of approach to those who support present Israeli policies. I've seen it before. Crudely is says: "The Holocaust is worse than anything the Jews have done to date, so shut up?" It is true that the Holocaust was worse than for instance the genocide and ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia. Is that a reason to not criticize Milosevic? It is true that the Holocaust is worse than the war crimes of the Israelis and even that of Sharon at Sabra and Shatila, but is that a reason not to criticize and prosecute Sharon? One can argue that the Holocaust was worse than the "Killing Fields in Cambodia", but is that a reason not to criticize that genocide, that in terms of sheer numbers was on the scale of the Holocaust. BTW the Holocaust is worse than Palestinian suicide bombers. Is that a reason not to criticize them. For the record I don't think that Refman is a "morally bereft human being" perhaps just a little bit hot headed or perhaps confused.
I'll take up the Israeli side in this hypothetical peace accord, because the three you mentioned don't seem to want to. 1st negotiation point - Imagine, for a second, you are Israeli. You are incredibly paranoid because for your entire history 3/4 of your neighbors have wanted to wipe you out at any one time. Then, remember back to when when Arafat and Barak both dined at the Clinton White House. Remember when both Arafat and Barak stood holding a door open for each other, insisting the other go through first? It was funny at the time but it illustrated to me a clear point: both men trusted the other so little that they couldn't turn their backs on each other long enough to walk through a door! So, I would ask if you think it would be possible to modify your 'total seperation' plan in such a way that paranoid Israel would at least be able to have personell monitor Palestinian borders, at least for a number of years, because I am convinced that Israel would never be willing to make a leap like that. 2nd negotiation point - I could see the settlement question being much more easily dealt with like this: In the same way that there are Arabs whose original settlements were within the UN lands designated as Israel, and these Arabs were allowed to keep their possessions and keep full citizenship rights under Israeli law, what if settlers whose settlements were not built upon demolished remains of an arab village were extended an option to stay and have the same property/citizenship rights that were extened to Arabs in Isreael. Could you see this being acceptable to Palestinians? 3rd Negotiation Point - Kahn, what would you do with Jeruselem? This was the big unresolved question in Oslo -- if you pull back to 'original lines' you have a number of sites that are considered 'important Muslim holy sites' falling within the state of Isreal, as well as Jewish and Christian holy sites in Palestine. I have no idea how you fix this probelm. Perhaps some sort of 'United Nations Free Zone', but neither side would like this, I think. 4th Negotiation Point - When you say: ...occupied territories become a state to have whatever government they choose and not a Western or Israeli puppet state. I assume that you would some sort of free and democratic election system under basic democratic principals under UN supervision would be reasonable. If you simply pull out and 'let them figure it out', I'd imagine you'd basically end up with a warlord system and massive civil war as was seen in Somalia.
glynch-- I retract any comment I made about you as a human being. I did get caught up in the moment. You have my apology for that. I do NOT retract my comments regarding the nature of the article. I don't know what Gordon's problem is. The comparison to the Holocaust is faulty for the reasons I stated. While I don't agree with the Israeli government on many levels, to say that it is comparable to the Holocaust is ludicrous. I certainly hope that the author was making an error rather than attempting to mislead. That faulty comparison totally colors the entire article.
The problem is that nobody knows of a solution which will actually end the violence. If Israel retreats to 1967 or even 1948 borders, it is still thought by many that the violence will continue because the militant factions wish to rid the world of the Israelis entirely. I'm willing to give the retreat a try though. Should the Palestinians continue bombings after that then Israel would have to do what they needed to in order to defend their country.
glynch - Look at it this way. Remember when Bobby Knight got into trouble for looking like he was whipping a black player? Taken out of context, it really wasn't a big deal... BUT, the history of slavery is a giant scar on the collective psyche of African-Americans. It is therefore not appropriate for non-African-Americans to use the terminology and imagery of slavery because they are looking in from outside. It is, however, very appropriate for African-Americans to use these images when looking at themselves, because they have an implicit legitimacy in uderstanding the subtext of these images.
This type of statement implicitly shows an intractablility about attempting to seek a solution. In the same way that the US gov't, despite spending billions of dollars, can't guarantee that cocaine doesn't get into the US, there is no way that even the most well-intentioned Palestinian state could stop every fringe group/individual within their borders from ever carying out violence against another state. Your conditions create a time bomb that will go off so you can say, "See! I told you it wouldn't work.", thus lending some thin patina of legiticimy to not seeking a viable solution.
Refman, thanks. You know this might surprise you, but I have occasionally made intemperate remarks myself.. Ottoman, I sort of agree on the slavery thing. From a sensitivity point of view, which is important, you're right. However, as perhaps Refman would agree, we, non-Jews, non -African Americans are free to comment on the use or possible misues of slavery or Holocaust references used as trump cards to debate current policy choices that society needs to discuss. However, the Neve Gordon article should be reread as it really does lay out the three roads for Israel. I didn't even notice the Holocaust reference, as I was focused on the three alternatives she points to. The Holocaust reference was hardly the focus of the article. Now back to the substantive issues of working out a peace plan for Palestine-- at least on the bbs. Hey if we can't do it, how can the actual parties do it?
I don't think that is true at all. I would like to see a solution - one that involves a formal Palestinian state. The problem is that we must remain mindful that Hamas and the Martyr's Brigade have gone on record stating that they even then may not stop the attacks. OK...so what to do about it? Should the Israelis just sit back and accept the mindless slaughter of their children? If the Palestinian state would not act against the militant groups...how would you propose to deal with it?
What recourse do you offer to Israel if they continue to be attacked after submitting to the demands of Palestine? It seems that Israel has nothing to gain by making any concessions. The only problem they have with the status quo is the terrorist attacks. If the attacks will continue anyway, what possible reason would they have for giving up anything, let alone half of their state?
#1 - I don't think even the hardcore Israeli's claim that they have any hardcore legal rights to the areas. It is no more 'their' state than Japan was part of America after World War two. Examine the official Israeli euphamism, in which they are refered to as 'Disputed Territories" and one clearly can see that even the most Jingoistic Israeli position does not claim undisputed rights to these lands. 2# - Why did England allow the US to sceede? Why did England give up control of India despite the fact that the predominant force resisting British rule made their will known through nonviolent means? Why did Isreal sign a peace treaty with Egypt, despite the fact that the cost was the Sinai Penensula, bigger than the rest of Israel combined, which operated as the same type of 'buffer zone' between Israel and Egypt that the West Bank is for Syria, and that there was no real assurance than the massively anti-Israeli public sentiment in Egypt would not result in a negation of the treaty by a new gov't without the return of Israel's concessions? The bottom line is that Israel has a proverbial 'tiger by the tale'. The cost of the 'contested lands' is far greater than any potential long-term value, but, as with the individual holding onto the Tiger's tail, the fear of the immediate consiquences of letting blind Israel to the fact that keeping hold is simply not going to work in the long term. Continuing the analogy, when one lets go of the Tiger, one risks an increased chance that the Tiger will turn around an maul you. But, the bottom line is that you simply can't spend the rest of your life being dragged around by an angry Tiger. You're going to have to deal with the unpleasant moment sooner or later in order to achieve some lasting piece of mind. You just have to accept that you're going to have to take your lumps in order to move on.
Originally posted by Ottomaton ... one clearly can see that even the most Jingoistic Israeli position does not claim undisputed rights to these lands. Actually, many of those settlers woud disagree. I'm no specialist on this, but I believe they reference where God supposedly gave Jews those specific lands. 2# - Why did England allow the US to sceede? Uh...they allowed us to secede? ...The bottom line is that Israel has a proverbial 'tiger by the tale'. The cost of the 'contested lands' is far greater than any potential long-term value, but, as with the individual holding onto the Tiger's tail, the fear of the immediate consiquences of letting blind Israel to the fact that keeping hold is simply not going to work in the long term. Continuing the analogy, when one lets go of the Tiger, one risks an increased chance that the Tiger will turn around an maul you. But, the bottom line is that you simply can't spend the rest of your life being dragged around by an angry Tiger. You're going to have to deal with the unpleasant moment sooner or later in order to achieve some lasting piece of mind. You just have to accept that you're going to have to take your lumps in order to move on. A decent analogy for some of Israel's leadership, whose main concern may be to apporach negotiations from a position of strength, but probably a poor analogy for other leaders and most Israeli citizens. They see a people that have included the destruction of Israel in their charter, then see little evidence that any leaders from that group are willing to control attacks on their country. Worse, they claim that there is evidence that their leaders have supported suicide bombers. In suumary, I think most Israelis see a baby tiger held by the tail, but once they let go, it will grow into a mature tiger that has promised to devour it.
