# Israel pulling out of Gaza and parts of West Bank



## tig3r (22 Aug 2005)

i'm surprised there isnt a thread on this already, or maybe there is and i havnet looked hard enough, but this topic is all over the news recently and may be worth discussing...

the way i see this event is that ariel sharon is forcing isrealis to leave the gaza strip after some 30 something years of occupation, not because he is commited to peace, but i think he is more interested in the west bank were about 400 000 Jews live, compared to only about 9 000 in the gaza strip. in fact, protecting these 9 000 or so isrealis who live amongst 1 million+ palestinians requires some extensive security, and by leaving the gaza strip, these isreali forces that once protected these people could be used more effectively. it would be very interesting to see how this turns out...so do you agree that sharon is a man commited to peace or is his interests elsewhere...


----------



## Guardian (22 Aug 2005)

Have a read of Sharon's biography sometime.

He's a warrior through and through, having fought in every single one of Israel's wars. The man has been there, has seen the cost of war firsthand. First and foremost, he is a patriot.

So I'm not sure it would be proper to call him a "man of peace." Israel's never known peace, because of its neighbors' antipathy. Men like Sharon have kept Israel in existence precisely because they were men of war. Sharon, rather, is a man committed to do anything it takes to ensure the survival of the Jewish state. Whichever will ensure that mission's accomplishment - be it war or peace - he will do it if he thinks it's necessary. I'm sure he is playing to keep more of the West Bank, as you said.

So, man of peace? If necessary, yes. But Sharon recognizes that peace can never be an end in itself - something that the liberal left worldwide has failed to see. If the Palestinians were to ever succeed in pushing Israel into the sea, then there would be "peace" - but that will never be an option. For Sharon, peace is a means to Israel's survival. Rest assured that if he thinks, sometime in the future, military action or even all-out war would be more conducive to Israel's survival than would a more peaceful stance, he will do it.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Aug 2005)

It's interesting to see Sharon, co-founder of the Likud, labelling some Jews terrorist now.

It is interesting watching this unfold, one hopes that it at least starts moving down the road to settling things down and ending the Intifada.  However, it seems to ball is in the Palestinian hands, and they've dropped it many times before.


----------



## Andyboy (23 Aug 2005)

To withdraw under pressure 
Mission/task Verb) Most often used within a mobile defense concept of operations, this task verb is used for units within the main defensive area and is designed to deceive the enemy into believing he is gaining success. Ultimately, the effect of this task is position the enemy for destruction, shaping him into a specific piece of terrain (normally a killing zone) within the MDA.  

Thoughts?


----------



## Gunnar (23 Aug 2005)

It appears that Sharon is giving the Palestinians (and the UN and the like) exactly what they've been asking for:   A Palestinian state.   Israel is going to mind its own affairs, and stop trying to be helpful, or to regulate Palestinian society.   That way, the world can see the Palestinians (and their chaotic lack of leadership) for what they are...a problem.

They've been "displaced" for many years, yet many are still living in refugee centres.   There have been decades of Palestinian leadership in the occupied territories, and they still don't have a police force that works, an economy to speak of, or jobs.   Now we can watch Europe whine about Israel when Israel is no longer involved, no longer patrolling the borders, and no longer interdicting weapon smuggling.   It should be interesting.   Somalia in the Middle East...without the Israelis to provide the vestiges of civilization.

Apparently, Egypt has sent 750 soldiers out to the Gaza border to replace the Israelis who left...wonder why...?   Aren't the Palestinians "brothers"?


----------



## Britney Spears (24 Aug 2005)

The cynical explanation would be that the Israelis will make the withdraw as hysterical as possible, for the sake of PR, thus appearing to be the good guys. In the mean time, they will continue to build new settlements in the West Bank, which is the real crux of the Palestinian grievance, and reserve the right to roll right back into Gaza should Palestinian terrorism continue. Gaza was vunerable and costly to defend, in any case, as already mentioned.




> It appears that Sharon is giving the Palestinians (and the UN and the like) exactly what they've been asking for:  A Palestinian state.



How so?


----------



## Gunnar (24 Aug 2005)

By walling them off and forgetting about them?


----------



## a_majoor (24 Aug 2005)

Part of this decision has to do with domestic politics; the settlers in Gaza represent the hopes and dreams of a large segment of the Zionist movement. At the same time, security concerns eat a lot of time and resources and energy that many Israelis would rather spend on other things. There are other, deeper issues about Zionism and the role of religion in society which do not track with anything we know or understand about Canadian domestic politics.

The fact that the Palestinians have never renounced their desire to destroy Israel and drive the Jews into the sea, combined with their complete inability to organize a civic society has led Sharon to conclude that disengagement best serves the domestic agenda of security and resource management. (I rather doubt that he, of all people, believes in the "Land for Peace" formula). What *we* think is pretty irrelevant to him.

An interesting look at the domestic scene over there:



> *Color War*
> Two flags and an Israeli schism.
> 
> By Meyrav Wurmser
> ...


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (24 Aug 2005)

What's scary about it is that the Palestinians are portraying this as a victory (with the obvious subtext of it being a victory for terrorist tactics) ... like the 3/11 bombings (specifically, the election result and withdrawal from Iraq) long-term implications could be far worse than what is currently being contemplated.


----------



## Britney Spears (24 Aug 2005)

> By walling them off and forgetting about them?



You're joking, right? 




> The fact that the Palestinians have never renounced their desire to destroy Israel and drive the Jews into the sea,





> What's scary about it is that the Palestinians are portraying this as a victory (with the obvious subtext of it being a victory for terrorist tactics) ... like the 3/11 bombings (specifically, the election result and withdrawal from Iraq) long-term implications could be far worse than what is currently being contemplated.



Really? The PA doesn't seem to hold this view, and they still represent a significant percentage of the Palestinian population. Can we agree that Hamas is not the sole representative of Palestinian public opinion?

Israel has NOTHING to lose from this action. If the PA manages to retain control over Gaza and rein in the extremists, then Israel gains a stable and peaceful southern border, without giving any concessions on the West Bank, the real heart of both the Palestinian grievance and Zionist ambitions. If Hamas takes over Gaza, then that's just more proof that you can't trust them Palestinians. The Israelis will be safe behind their Gaza wall to launch attacks in to Gaza, and use the lack of PA control as an excuse to expand further into the West Bank. Either way the world is flooded with images of wailing Israelis being dragged out of their homes (illegally built on expropriated Palestinian land) "for the sake of peace", and the PA, who were never even consulted about the plan, are again the bad guys. Sharon is no fool.


----------



## tig3r (24 Aug 2005)

just to add to what has been already said, i think it is clearly evident over the last few years that the PA has had no luck in controlling the activities of Hamaas and I don't see this changing in the near future. It was mentioned that the isrealis are safe to lauch attacks into gaza, but that could also work the other way. Hamaas could just as easily use this area to expand their network and lauch attacks into isreali controlled areas. Either way you look at it, this pullout from gaza definitely does not look like a step towards peace...


----------



## Britney Spears (24 Aug 2005)

> Hamaas could just as easily use this area to expand their network and lauch attacks into isreali controlled areas.



I think that the Israelis, with their apaches and UAVs, will have no trouble dominating Gaza militarily, they didn't have any when the settlers were still there. Israeli police still control the border with their wall. While the Palestinians could potentially strike deeper into Israel with rockets and mortars based in Gaza, They'd have to get pretty good at the shoot/scoot thing if they haven't already.

But I've never been there, I have no idea.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (24 Aug 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Israel has NOTHING to lose from this action.


If you don't consider the _image _of caving into terrorism.



> the world is flooded with images of wailing Israelis being dragged out of their homes


... under Palestinian paramilitary death-squad* refugee mortar and rocket fire**.



> Sharon is no fool.


Agree with that: he's doing exactly what he thinks is best for Israel (and I reckon, Israel only).


*Sorry, applies to pro-American forces only.
**Also sorry, this hasn't been shown or reported in Western media.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (24 Aug 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> You're joking, right?
> 
> 
> Really? The PA doesn't seem to hold this view, and they still represent a significant percentage of the Palestinian population. Can we agree that Hamas is not the sole representative of Palestinian public opinion?
> ...



Here is one of many translations available on the web of the PLO/PA Charter....

Bottom Line:  Your statement is factually wrong.  Article 15 was supposed to have been changed as part of the Oslo Accords, however that has never happened.  Additionally, Abbas was quoted just the other day as saying the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was the direct result of the sacrifices of the martyrs (giving the credit to the suicide bombers).  



Matthew.    

=================================================================================================================

The PLO Charter

Below is the Palestinian National Covenant, the official charter of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The text is the English version published officially by the PLO, unabridged and unedited. 
Note, however, that the PLO's translation sometimes deviates from the original Arabic so as to be more palatable to Western readers. For example, in Article 15, the Arabic is translated as "the elimination of Zionism," whereas the correct translation is "the liquidation of the Zionist presence." "The Zionist presence" is a common Arabic euphemism for the State of Israel, so this clause in fact calls for the destruction of Israel, not just the end of Zionism. 

Where subtleties in the original Arabic are important, the Arabic word has been inserted in parentheses. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL CHARTER:
Resolutions of the Palestine National Council, July 1-17, 1968

Text of the Charter: 

Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation. 

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit. 

Article 3: The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will. 

Article 4: The Palestinian identity is a genuine, essential, and inherent characteristic; it is transmitted from parents to children. The Zionist occupation and the dispersal of the Palestinian Arab people, through the disasters which befell them, do not make them lose their Palestinian identity and their membership in the Palestinian community, nor do they negate them. 

Article 5: The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian. 

Article 6: The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians. 

Article 7: That there is a Palestinian community and that it has material, spiritual, and historical connection with Palestine are indisputable facts. It is a national duty to bring up individual Palestinians in an Arab revolutionary manner. All means of information and education must be adopted in order to acquaint the Palestinian with his country in the most profound manner, both spiritual and material, that is possible. He must be prepared for the armed struggle and ready to sacrifice his wealth and his life in order to win back his homeland and bring about its liberation. 

Article 8: The phase in their history, through which the Palestinian people are now living, is that of national (watani) struggle for the liberation of Palestine. Thus the conflicts among the Palestinian national forces are secondary, and should be ended for the sake of the basic conflict that exists between the forces of Zionism and of imperialism on the one hand, and the Palestinian Arab people on the other. On this basis the Palestinian masses, regardless of whether they are residing in the national homeland or in diaspora (mahajir) constitute - both their organizations and the individuals - one national front working for the retrieval of Palestine and its liberation through armed struggle. 

Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. Thus it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it. They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it. 

Article 10: Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war. This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution. It also requires the achieving of unity for the national (watani) struggle among the different groupings of the Palestinian people, and between the Palestinian people and the Arab masses, so as to secure the continuation of the revolution, its escalation, and victory. 

Article 11: The Palestinians will have three mottoes: national (wataniyya) unity, national (qawmiyya) mobilization, and liberation. 

Article 12: The Palestinian people believe in Arab unity. In order to contribute their share toward the attainment of that objective, however, they must, at the present stage of their struggle, safeguard their Palestinian identity and develop their consciousness of that identity, and oppose any plan that may dissolve or impair it. 

Article 13: Arab unity and the liberation of Palestine are two complementary objectives, the attainment of either of which facilitates the attainment of the other. Thus, Arab unity leads to the liberation of Palestine, the liberation of Palestine leads to Arab unity; and work toward the realization of one objective proceeds side by side with work toward the realization of the other. 

Article 14: The destiny of the Arab nation, and indeed Arab existence itself, depend upon the destiny of the Palestine cause. From this interdependence springs the Arab nation's pursuit of, and striving for, the liberation of Palestine. The people of Palestine play the role of the vanguard in the realization of this sacred (qawmi) goal. 

Article 15: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine. Absolute responsibility for this falls upon the Arab nation - peoples and governments - with the Arab people of Palestine in the vanguard. Accordingly, the Arab nation must mobilize all its military, human, moral, and spiritual capabilities to participate actively with the Palestinian people in the liberation of Palestine. It must, particularly in the phase of the armed Palestinian revolution, offer and furnish the Palestinian people with all possible help, and material and human support, and make available to them the means and opportunities that will enable them to continue to carry out their leading role in the armed revolution, until they liberate their homeland. 

Article 16: The liberation of Palestine, from a spiritual point of view, will provide the Holy Land with an atmosphere of safety and tranquility, which in turn will safeguard the country's religious sanctuaries and guarantee freedom of worship and of visit to all, without discrimination of race, color, language, or religion. Accordingly, the people of Palestine look to all spiritual forces in the world for support. 

Article 17: The liberation of Palestine, from a human point of view, will restore to the Palestinian individual his dignity, pride, and freedom. Accordingly the Palestinian Arab people look forward to the support of all those who believe in the dignity of man and his freedom in the world. 

Article 18: The liberation of Palestine, from an international point of view, is a defensive action necessitated by the demands of self-defense. Accordingly the Palestinian people, desirous as they are of the friendship of all people, look to freedom-loving, and peace-loving states for support in order to restore their legitimate rights in Palestine, to re-establish peace and security in the country, and to enable its people to exercise national sovereignty and freedom. 

Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination. 

Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong. 

Article 21: The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or its internationalization. 

Article 22: Zionism is a political movement organically associated with international imperialism and antagonistic to all action for liberation and to progressive movements in the world. It is racist and fanatic in its nature, aggressive, expansionist, and colonial in its aims, and fascist in its methods. Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity, and progress. Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world. Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of peace in the Middle East, the Palestinian people look for the support of all the progressive and peaceful forces and urge them all, irrespective of their affiliations and beliefs, to offer the Palestinian people all aid and support in their just struggle for the liberation of their homeland. 

Article 23: The demand of security and peace, as well as the demand of right and justice, require all states to consider Zionism an illegitimate movement, to outlaw its existence, and to ban its operations, in order that friendly relations among peoples may be preserved, and the loyalty of citizens to their respective homelands safeguarded. 

Article 24: The Palestinian people believe in the principles of justice, freedom, sovereignty, self-determination, human dignity, and in the right of all peoples to exercise them. 

Article 25: For the realization of the goals of this Charter and its principles, the Palestine Liberation Organization will perform its role in the liberation of Palestine in accordance with the Constitution of this Organization. 

Article 26: The Palestine Liberation Organization, representative of the Palestinian revolutionary forces, is responsible for the Palestinian Arab people's movement in its struggle - to retrieve its homeland, liberate and return to it and exercise the right to self-determination in it - in all military, political, and financial fields and also for whatever may be required by the Palestine case on the inter-Arab and international levels. 

Article 27: The Palestine Liberation Organization shall cooperate with all Arab states, each according to its potentialities; and will adopt a neutral policy among them in the light of the requirements of the war of liberation; and on this basis it shall not interfere in the internal affairs of any Arab state. 

Article 28: The Palestinian Arab people assert the genuineness and independence of their national (wataniyya) revolution and reject all forms of intervention, trusteeship, and subordination. 

Article 29: The Palestinian people possess the fundamental and genuine legal right to liberate and retrieve their homeland. The Palestinian people determine their attitude toward all states and forces on the basis of the stands they adopt vis-a-vis to the Palestinian revolution to fulfill the aims of the Palestinian people. 

Article 30: Fighters and carriers of arms in the war of liberation are the nucleus of the popular army which will be the protective force for the gains of the Palestinian Arab people. 

Article 31: The Organization shall have a flag, an oath of allegiance, and an anthem. All this shall be decided upon in accordance with a special regulation. 

Article 32: Regulations, which shall be known as the Constitution of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, shall be annexed to this Charter. It will lay down the manner in which the Organization, and its organs and institutions, shall be constituted; the respective competence of each; and the requirements of its obligation under the Charter. 

Article 33: This Charter shall not be amended save by [vote of] a majority of two-thirds of the total membership of the National Congress of the Palestine Liberation Organization [taken] at a special session convened for that purpose. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Leila S. Kadi (ed.), Basic Political Documents of the Armed Palestinian Resistance Movement, Palestine Research Centre, Beirut, December 1969, pp. 137-141.


----------



## Britney Spears (24 Aug 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt, for the sake of battling mis-information, you're off the ignore list for now.

1) The PLO and the PA are seperate entities.

2)<a href=http://www.pna.gov.ps/key_decuments/index.asp>Straight from the PA's mouth</a>



> * The borders between the state of Palestine and the state of Israel will be the June 4th 1967 Armistice Line, though the two sides may agree to minor, reciprocal, and equal boundary rectifications that do not affect, among other things, territorial contiguity. The Palestinian and Israeli sides shall have no territorial claims beyond the June 4, 1967 borders. These borders will be the permanent boundaries between the two states.



3) You're citing a work dated *1969* to reflect current Palestinian attitudes.  

So, tell me, should we just go back to ignoring each other? I'm leaning towards it.  :


----------



## Infanteer (24 Aug 2005)

Personally, when I look at a map of Israel/Palestine, I see no hope - you have a Palestine that is made up of two little globs, with Israeli settlers still in half of the bigger glob.  How the hell can you call that a nation-state?

Anyways, it seems to me (as somebody else pointed out), the real, long-term determinant is the Arab population bomb.

Anyways, like Britney, I've never been there, so what do I know.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Aug 2005)

The relationship between the PLO, the PA and other assorted actors is rather murky in the "Org Chart" sense, but essentially they all feed off one another and work towards the same goals (the destruction of Israel). For the most part the PA is the smiling, "public" face much as Sein Fenn was the smiley face of the PIRA.

Smiley faces are important since Western media and decision makers seem easily confused, witness Canada and attempts to impliment the anti-terrorism bill. Hamas was able to work in Canada for several years after the passage of the bill because they have what might be reffered to as a "civil affairs" branch, because this group works to provide doctors and teachers in areas that Hamas has influence our political class claimed Hamas was not a terrorist group. The fact that setting up doctors and educators (and using para military thugs to collect "taxes" for these people) in areas under your control is a long standing tactic in revolutionary war theory (Parallel Structures to delegitamize existing Government ones) never seemed to enter into the mind sets of the decision makers in Ottawa.

The Palestinians are quite willing to say and do almost anything to present the smiley face to western media. Active reserchers with an understanding of the Arab language reading Palestinian books and newspapers, translating the speeches of Palestinian leaders and watching and recording Palestinian TV and radio broadcasts see a very different side of things, and sometimes the mask slips, such as Palestinians celebrating in the streets after September 11 2001. (Recall that Arafat had been the most honoured guest in the Clinton White house, and President Bush was still comitted to a non interventionist and mostly domestic agenda up until the 10th of September). Sadly, most of what people see and hear is the smiley face propaganda, and few western news sources take the time or effort to report what is being said and done for the internal Palestinian market.

Regardless of your sympathies, the Palestinians need to shake off the thugs and kleptocrats who have twisted and wreaked their civil society, using Isreal, Europe, America and the West and a conveinient lightining rod to divert the blame from the real problems. Palestine could be a state, even within the present geographical boundaries, once they establish the rule of law, property rights and transparent, accountable government. Until then, it really doesn't matter what their geographical boundaries are, they will continue to live in chaos and dispair.


----------



## Britney Spears (24 Aug 2005)

> Regardless of your sympathies, the Palestinians need to shake off the thugs and kleptocrats who have twisted and wreaked their civil society, using Isreal, Europe, America and the West and a conveinient lightining rod to divert the blame from the real problems. Palestine could be a state, even within the present geographical boundaries, once they establish the rule of law, property rights and transparent, accountable government. Until then, it really doesn't matter what their geographical boundaries are, they will continue to live in chaos and dispair.



All well and good, but when we look at these things, we can't overlook the fact that the Israelis are FAR from blameless in starting this mess, that that's the reason why moderate Palestinians have a hard time making themselves heard. Most moderate Israelis know this. 

That's all I was trying to get across, really. As long as we agree on that,  I don't think we need to do any further hair splitting over this little matter (otherwise we end up just like them! ).


----------



## Andyboy (24 Aug 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Personally, when I look at a map of Israel/Palestine, I see no hope - you have a Palestine that is made up of two little globs, with Israeli settlers still in half of the bigger glob.   How the heck can you call that a nation-state?



Why must "Palestine" be free of Jews to be a nation state, or is it the separate blobs part that is the problem?


----------



## Infanteer (24 Aug 2005)

Andyboy said:
			
		

> Why must "Palestine" be free of Jews to be a nation state



I'm going to set a parameter here that we are arguing about an sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza (and making a bigger assumption that the PA will sort itself out).  Are West Bank settlers willing to acede to the authority of a legitimate Palestinian government, or is their ultimate sovereignty going to continue to stem from the IDF?  If the Americans put "settlements" in Canada, would we assume that they would willingly become loyal to the Canadian government?

If we are arguing that the Occupied Territories (are they still called that?  They must be, since Israel just pulled out of one of them) are part and parcel of Israel, then there is no discussion required.



> or is it the separate blobs part that is the problem?



I'm just look at the map and see the "Danzig Corridor" as being a political albatross down the road (assuming that everybody gets on from the current problem).  Does it look like a viable nation-state to you?  Personally, I liked one of the earlier British plans for a half-and-half cut up; would of worked, but neither side seemed interested at the time.


----------



## TCBF (24 Aug 2005)

"Personally, when I look at a map of Israel/Palestine, I see no hope - you have a Palestine that is made up of two little globs, with Israeli settlers still in half of the bigger glob.  How the heck can you call that a nation-state?"

Hey, it worked for East and West Pakistan! ....  uh..... until East Pakistan became Bangladesh, anyway...

Tom


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (24 Aug 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm going to set a parameter here that we are arguing about an sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza (and making a bigger assumption that the PA will sort itself out).  Are West Bank settlers willing to acede to the authority of a legitimate Palestinian government, or is their ultimate sovereignty going to continue to stem from the IDF?



There's a disconnect in the logic at a fundamental level here: the Palestinian Authority will not grant the "settlers" right to EXIST in "Palestine" (let alone allow them to stay in their homes or afford them any level of protection), unlike, say, the citizenship rights enjoyed Palestinians in Israel.


----------



## 48Highlander (24 Aug 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> All well and good, but when we look at these things, we can't overlook the fact that the Israelis are FAR from blameless in starting this mess.



Yeah, you're right.  They should have just let themselves be anhiliated.  Would have saved us all a lot of trouble.  Bastards.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm going to set a parameter here that we are arguing about an sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza (and making a bigger assumption that the PA will sort itself out).   Are West Bank settlers willing to acede to the authority of a legitimate Palestinian government, or is their ultimate sovereignty going to continue to stem from the IDF?   If the Americans put "settlements" in Canada, would we assume that they would willingly become loyal to the Canadian government?



Actually, if you'll remember, the French did that a while back.  We had a bit of a scuffle, and then we allowed their settlers to join us as a province.  They've been loyal....sorta.


----------



## Shec (24 Aug 2005)

In a now declassifed June 29 1967 memo from the US Joint Chiefs of Staff to the US Secretary of Defence (JCSM-373-67) the JCS observed that Israel "would require the retention of some captured territory in order to provide militarily defensible borders based upon tactical principles such as control of commanding terrain, use of natural obstacles, elimination of enemy-held salients, and provision of defense in-depth for important facilities and installations."   

Gaza, as an essentially flat relief-less piece of sand, is not strategic ground.     However the re: West Bank the memo reads "Control of the prominent high ground running north-south through the middle of West Jordan generally east of the main north-south highway along the axis Jennin-Nablus-Bira-Jerusalem and then southeast to a junction with the Dead Sea at the Wadi el Daraja would provide Israel with a militarily defensible border. The envisioned defensive line would run just east of Jerusalem...."

Israeli settlement patterns in the West Bank follow this line.   Self sustaining economically viable outposts is the history of Israeli defensive fortification,   that's why the "fighting farmers" of the IDF's Nahal corps was created when the IDF was created and why it exists to this day.   

Media hyperbole aside,   defensible borders   is the real issue.   And therefore the reason why   Sharon is prepared to give up Gaza and parts of the West Bank.   I trust that those with an appreciation of the use of ground would agree that any soldier would be a fool to give up the high ground.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Aug 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> There's a disconnect in the logic at a fundamental level here: the Palestinian Authority will not grant the "settlers" right to EXIST in "Palestine" (let alone allow them to stay in their homes or afford them any level of protection), unlike, say, the citizenship rights enjoyed Palestinians in Israel.



Well, that is what I was getting at with the "PA will sort itself out clause".  As long as a movement with genuine issues and claims continues to be dominated by terrorists, thugs, and gangsters, then there is no real hope at all.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Aug 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Yeah, you're right.   They should have just let themselves be anhiliated.   Would have saved us all a lot of trouble.   Bastards.



Saying that the Jews are blameless is like saying the Palestinians are mere freedom fighters.  I know you are not that foolish, so ease up on the rhetoric.


----------



## 48Highlander (24 Aug 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Saying that the Jews are blameless is like saying the Palestinians are mere freedom fighters.   I know you are not that foolish, so ease up on the rhetoric.



No they're not blameless.  Neither is a rape victim who kills his/her assailant.  In both cases you can blame the victim for all sorts of things.  

"She shouldn't have been wearing such a revealing dress"
"You see all that lipstick?  she was just asking for it!"
"Well, sure she was being raped, but that doesn't give her the right to kill him!"
"Eh, he wasn't really trying to rape her.  If she had gone along, everything would have been fine!"

See how that works?  You can blame the Israelis for lots of stuff, but when you come right down to it, all they've been doing since the first official date of their state has been done to protect their nation, their lives, and their way of life.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (24 Aug 2005)

> 1) The PLO and the PA are seperate entities.



No.  The PA is the direct evolution of the PLO as dictated by the Oslo Accords.  In essence, the objective was that the Israelis and mediating bodies hoped that if they could turn a terrorist organization into a political organization, it would be bound by their informal statehood to behave.  Sadly, the optimists were wrong and Arafat and cronies (all from the PLO) continued to run the PA.  The only significant change to the PLO was that it was legitimized, now had a small standing army and was funded by EU.  Most of the chores of statehood were taken up by Hamas who with funding from Middle Eastern Arab Nations began providing much of the key infrastructure and primary services in the territories including schools and hospitals.  That is why to this day Hamas is far more trusted than the Palestinian Authority".



> 2) Straight from the horses mouth.... (quote didn't carry forward properly)



Short Version is what the Palestinian Authority says in English to Western Newspapers and what they do in reality are two very different things.  Check the number of suicide bombers that the Palestinian Authority Charter apparently doesn't support that were members of the Fatah Party or Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade of Arafat/Abbas.



> 3) You're citing a work dated *1969* to reflect current Palestinian attitudes.


Yep, because although symbolically repealed to the rest of the world in order to obtain funding for the PA/PLO, it is still treated as a living document within the territories.  This is little different that the hypocritical way they use the term "peace" in English and "truce" in Arab.  Bottom Line is again actions speak louder than words....The term "Hudna" is defined in Islam as a TEMPORARY truce with a long-term enemy.  In essence, it allows a 10-year time frame in which while the enemy is strong and Muslims are weak, to rebuild and reconstitute forces in order to gain advantage.  Once those forces are rebuilt, they are obligated under Jihad to return to war and destroy that enemy.  This definition was created by none other than Muhammed himself when he called a 2-year "hudna" with the Quraysh prior to defeating them to take Mecca. [/quote]



> So, tell me, should we just go back to ignoring each other? I'm leaning towards it.   :



Brittany, you can ignore me all you like.  My objective is merely to point out to people who take your "statements of fact" at face value that the confidence in your convictions do not necessarily equate to your accuracy.


Matthew.   ;D


----------



## Britney Spears (25 Aug 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt's water muddling and doubletalk not withstanding, Israel, at the Oslo Accords of 1993, recognized the PA as the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people. In turn, the PLO, The PA, and Yasser Arrafat himself have acknowledged  Israel's right to exist. This was a big deal at the time, they even got a Nobel prize for it. Hell I was even old enough to remember it (vaguely). Neither the PLO nor the PA has disputed this conclusions and it has been the basis for all subsequent PA/Israeli negotiations. Now one can debate to what degree each side was responsible for the subsequent violence, but no serious observer of these events, neither moderate Israelis or moderate Palestinians, could claim that either side was completely or even mostly blameless. Saying "the Palestinians was to drive the Israelis into the sea" is the same as saying "The Israelis consider Palestinians to be lice and a cancer". Some of them(both Israelis and Palestinians) probably do, but you'll just have to get over that if you want any meaningful discussion.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Aug 2005)

I will reluctantly wade in once more:

Although the PLO/PA has indeed signed the Oslo accords and sent Arafat on a performing bear tour including the Clinton white house and a Nobel Peaceprize, inside Palestine children are still taught that Israel does not have a right to exist, the PLO and HAMAS struggle to gain ascendancy inside Palestine, often by sponsoring more violence and more suicide attacks against Israeli civilians, and other violations of the provisions of the Oslo accords happen on a regular basis. To my knowledge, no Jews live in Palestine, none would be welcomed and certainly any person of Jewish decent who tried to claim ancestral land in Palestine (i.e. their family lived and worked on the land prior to 1948) would be roughly dealt with, to say the least.

Israel responds by closing its borders to Palestinians who seek to work in Israeli companies, and uses military force to target terrorist cells and leaders wherever they happen to be. Arabs are Israeli citizens who live, work, vote and voice opinions inside the State of Israel and have the rights and obligations of other citizens. Certainly many people in Israel have negative views towards Palestinians and wish them ill, but not to the extent of recruiting Jewish suicide bombers to sow fear in Palestine by randomly killing civilians, or teaching children in public schools that Palestine has no legitimate existence (including textbooks which have maps depicting a Middle East without Palestine).

In essence the argument of "moral equivalence" cannot be used in the Israel/Palestine conflict, just as it could not be used between the United States and the USSR during the cold war. People who attempt to do so should think very carefully; is a liberal-democratric state under the rule of law really the same as an opaque thugocracy? Please read the current issue of the Atlantic Monthly;  How Yasir Arafat destroyed Palestine by David Samuels to see just how far the Palestinians fell, and how far they have to climb before they can reconstitute a civil society.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Aug 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> No they're not blameless.   Neither is a rape victim who kills his/her assailant.   In both cases you can blame the victim for all sorts of things.
> 
> "She shouldn't have been wearing such a revealing dress"
> "You see all that lipstick?   she was just asking for it!"
> ...



Okay, you are being foolish then - and your refusal to see any blame in the Israeli camp puts you on equal footing with Palestinian extremists; your insistence on seeing things in black and white offers nothing towards a solution...and this isn't just me saying this, everyone from diplomat Dennis Ross to insurgency expert Col. Thomas Hammes have been quite explicit in pointing out the same thing.   

"Who's to blame" is a tricky thing, as it goes back and forth through time.   Go back to the 40's and look at a map - can you blame the Arabs for being slightly torqued?   I don't know how a group of people, who formed the majority in only 1 sub-district of Palestine (Jaffa) could declare "independence" (see map at bottom).   But, irregardless, demographics have changed (just like here in the Americas) and their is a new reality on the ground.   As well, the history of the Jewish movement isn't the cleanest one either - the Irgun would probably make the US State Department's Terrorist List today.

Flash forward ahead - where do you think the impetus for the first Intifada stemmed from?   Do you claim that many policies of the Likud haven't been inflammatory?   Yitzhak Rabin (the guy who won the Nobel, remember?) was killed by whom?

We must never fall into the anti-Israeli stance of the UN, the left-wing establishment (eff you, Chomsky), and the media in general, and we must always remember the illegitimacy of a cause that holds the fundamental strategy of pushing the Jews into the sea.   But on the same token, we musn't forget that it takes two to tango.


----------



## Britney Spears (25 Aug 2005)

> In essence the argument of "moral equivalence" cannot be used in the Israel/Palestine conflict, just as it could not be used between the United States and the USSR during the cold war. People who attempt to do so should think very carefully; is a liberal-democratric state under the rule of law really the same as an opaque thugocracy?



It seems we run into this fundamental difference in perceptions everywhere I turn. I don't condone suicide bombings, but I also realize that suicide bombers and their supporters are not doing it because they're bored or crazy, but because they do have legitimate grievances and because they are supported by the majority of the population. Popular movements, be it Bolshevism or Al Qaida or the Palestinian resistance movements, are not created in a vacuum and are not spun out of thin air.  I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult for the die hard right wing to grasp.  

Moral authority is in the eye of the beholder. Unilaterally assuming moral authority is generally not a basis for any kind of reasonable negotiation. This kind of attitude sounds nice for the polls but gets you nowhere in the real world.  Pretend I'm an average moderate Palestinian and present me a reasonable argument why the Israeli army, which has killed far more Palestinian civillians in the first and second Intifadas than vice versa, are my moral superiors. Unless you can reasonably convince the majority of your OPPONENTS of your moral superiority, as we did to the German people after World War 2, then your moral authority is worth as much as the paper it's printed on. The bottom line is that the Palestinians are still here, and you'd better be prepared to either address their grievances or kill/deport the lot of them. Treating them like wayward children will not result in any peace for either side.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Aug 2005)

Britney, excellent post.

"Is a liberal-democratric state under the rule of law really the same as an opaque thugocracy?" makes sense to us in the West, but we are not the ones with the grievence/issues/hard on that is resorting to violence, are we?


----------



## paracowboy (25 Aug 2005)

'moderate Palestinian' sorry guys, but there ain't no such animal anymore. I've seen the textbooks, I've watched the videos and movies. The indoctrination begins at birth and has for 30 years. Children are taught that all Jews must be exterminated. This starts at infancy. 
How you gonna to find a moderate? You'll find men who will claim to be moderates for personal/political gain, and you'll find some folks who just want the endless cycle of violence to end. But you won't find a true moderate.
We can go back in history to the creation of Israel, and it's very questionable legalities. We can go back to the conquering by Rome, or back to Biblical myth. It's all equally irrelevent. 

I know who teaches their children to commit murder while committing suicide. I've seen the murderous propaganda taught to infants, and I've wept while watching it. I've witnessed the cult of death. I know who's wrong.


----------



## 48Highlander (25 Aug 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Okay, you are being foolish then - and your refusal to see any blame in the Israeli camp puts you on equal footing with Palestinian extremists; your insistence on seeing things in black and white offers nothing towards a solution...
> 
> "Who's to blame" is a tricky thing, as it goes back and forth through time.  Go back to the 40's and look at a map - can you blame the Arabs for being slightly torqued?  I don't know how a group of people, who formed the majority in only 1 sub-district of Palestine (Jaffa) could declare "independence" (see map at bottom).



They didn't declare "independence", and Palestine didn't exist.  At least, not as a state.  Jews dominated the land around Jerusalem starting roughly 1300 BC.  They were eventually defeated by the Romans, the Jews were displaced, and since then the land has been ruled variously by the Romans, Islamic and Christian crusaders, The Ottoman Empire, and finally, the British Empire.  At no point throughout history did a nation known as "Palestine", with the borders claimed by today's "Palestinians" exist.  It was only after the creation of Israel, and the defeat of it's Arab neighbors, that the notion of "Palestine" as a state began.  There is no distinct Palestinian language. no Palestinian history, and no Palestinian culture - the only distinctly Palestinian custom is the killing of Jews through suicide bombings.  In fact, the word Palestine was originally employed to describe a land-mass including Israel, Palestine, and Jordan, and was turned over to British control by Turkey in 1923.  Britain took 80% of that land and allocated it to a state named Jordan.  Then in 1947, the UN partitioned the remaining land into two states.  Therefore the Jews didn't declare independence.  Jordan was created by the Brits, Israel and Palestine were created by the UN.

  So can I blame the Arabs for being slightly torque?  Hell yes!  The Arab's already had 80% of the region ceded to them in the form of Jordan.  They were being offered roughly half of the remaining 20% so they could create another smaller state, or merge it with Jordan, or do whatever they wished.  Instead, they refused all the terms of the agreement, much of the population of "Palestine" as well as many Arabs living in the newly created state of Israel, all packed up and left at the urging of the Arab states who were about to team up to destroy Israel.  At the same time, close to a million Jews were forced to move out of various Arab countries, and moved into Israel.  Everyone knows the outcome of that war.  The Arabs got their asses handed to them, the Jews used the opportunity to grab some more land, and the "Palestinians" became refugees.  Now what exactly am I supposed to blame the Jews for there?



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Flash forward ahead - where do you think the impetus for the first Intifada stemmed from?  Do you claim that many policies of the Likud haven't been inflammatory?  Yitzhak Rabin (the guy who won the Nobel, remember?) was killed by whom?



The Likud's policies are about as inflammatory to the Palestinians as the US Republicans are to the Arab world in general.  Are you going to blame the 9/11 attacks on Bush now?   Yes there have been Jewish terrorist organizations as well.  Just like the US has had it's share of Christian terrorists.  There are extremists in every group.  The difference is that in Palestine, the extremists were the government, and pretty much the entire population wanted the destruction of Israel.  The word "extremist" when applied to Palestinians simply refers to wanting the death of all Israelis as well as the destruction of their state.  So no, you don't have much of a case if you're going to try to blame the Likud party, or any Israeli terrorist groups.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> We must never fall into the anti-Israeli stance of the UN, the left-wing establishment (eff you, Chomsky), and the media in general, and we must always remember the illegitimacy of a cause that holds the fundamental strategy of pushing the Jews into the sea.  But on the same token, we musn't forget that it takes two to tango.



It takes two to fuck too, but only one has to be a willing participant.  Once again - if you're going to blame Israel for the mess that the Middle East is in, you may as well blame the US for 9/11, the Brits for their subway bombing, Spain for the bombings in Madrid, and the Aussies for the Bali bombing.  No group can ever be entirely blameless, but trying to claim that Israel and Palestine have the same moral standing is just silly.


----------



## Andyboy (25 Aug 2005)

Whether the grievances are legitimate or not is irrelevant In my mind. I had a guy cut me off on the road the other day, certainly I have a legitimate grievance, it doesn't mean I should slash his tires no matter how much I would like to or how many people would support me if I did. I think Germany in the 30s had plenty of legitimate grievances as well but that did not mean that it was wise to concede anything to them while Hitler was running the place. As far as I'm concerned until the Pals show themselves to be reasonable as a people there is no reason for Israel to concede anything to them. The first step in becoming a reasonable people is for them to decide what their grievances are is and how they can be resolved. I'm not sure that the grievance is so much that someone is occupying their territory as it is that specifically Jews that are occupying it. As such I'm not really convinced that returning the occupied territories will resolve anything if the UN sponsored "Gaza Today. The West Bank and Jerusalem Tomorrow." campaign is any sign, nor am I sure returning them while Hamas et al have the power that they do is wise. These are not my original thoughts by the way. A visiting American politcian was taken to the top of a high rise hotel in Israel where from the roof you could see three sides of the Israeli border. HE was quoted as saying " When you can see three sides of your country from a high hotel you have to be pretty careful about who your neighbors are,and what you concede to who." I'm paraphrasing of course becasue I don't have the book in front of me (Colin Powell's autobiography) but the point is valid I think. Wretchard at Belmont Club had an interesting post about it here:

"Memory Lane 

When   Hitler's troops reoccupied the Rhineland in violation of its treaty obligations to restore German dignity, stormtroopers parading before the Reichschancellery sang "for today we own Germany and tomorrow the entire world". The echo of that refrain reverberates in the United Nations. The Jerusalem Post has this Associated Press story:

The United Nations is embroiled in a dispute with American Jewish organizations over the funding of Palestinian banners in Gaza, and US Ambassador John Bolton on Wednesday protested the "unacceptable" payments.

The dispute centers on the UN Development Program's payment for materials produced by the Palestinian Authority for Israel's disengagement from Gaza which include banners saying: "Gaza Today. The West Bank and Jerusalem Tomorrow."

The irony is exact. The French Left remained passive in what Churchill called the last moment in which Second World War could have been prevented. Instead it allowed that Hitler had a legitimate grievance and met him with renunciations of militarism and expressions of understanding. For what, they asked, could be more German than the Rhineland? One could have rhetorically asked whether a Nazi Rhineland was the same thing. But then:

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."


Infanteer,

Thanks for the reply, I just wasn't sure which you thought it was. As some others have pointed out there are plenty of nations that have oddly shaped or discontinuous territories, some even with non-citizens occupying a sizeable chunk. The physical aspects aside, what is it that is keeping the Pals from being a nation, themselves or someone else?


----------



## Jed (25 Aug 2005)

To 48th Highlander: You said   "So can I blame the Arabs for being slightly torque?  heck yes!  The Arab's already had 80% of the region ceded to them in the form of Jordan.  They were being offered roughly half of the remaining 20% so they could create another smaller state, or merge it with Jordan, or do whatever they wished. "

Surely you can see that there are two sides to this issue. The Arab peoples of the PA have a legitimate concern just as the Jewish people in Isreal have a legit concern. If my father or grandfather owned the land that I was forced from and was expected to be content that my good arid land along the Jordan was gone and I was to be content with the desert sands in Jordan,and that I should consider my self lucky ... I don't think this would cut it. I might just be mad enough to do something about the unjust and unfair actions.


----------



## 48Highlander (25 Aug 2005)

Jed said:
			
		

> Surely you can see that there are two sides to this issue. The Arab peoples of the PA have a legitimate concern just as the Jewish people in Isreal have a legit concern. If my father or grandfather owned the land that I was forced from and was expected to be content that my good arid land along the Jordan was gone and I was to be content with the desert sands in Jordan,and that I should consider my self lucky ... I don't think this would cut it. I might just be mad enough to do something about the unjust and unfair actions.



So according to that logic, the Jewish settlers who are now being forced out of the Gaza should turn terrorist and start killing other Israelis?

Besides which, Arabs were never forced off their land by Jews.  At the time of Israels founding, they implored the local Arabs to stay.  From Israel's proclamation of independance:

"In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions....We extend our hand in peace and neighborliness to all the neighboring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all."

Granted, that was in 1948.  In 1947. "The Assembly of Palestine Jewry" issued this statement:

"We will do everything in our power to maintain peace, and establish a cooperation gainful to both [Jews and Arabs]. It is now, here and now, from Jerusalem itself, that a call must go out to the Arab nations to join forces with Jewry and the destined Jewish State and work shoulder to shoulder for our common good, for the peace and progress of sovereign equals."

Now, yeah, I could understand Arabs being pissed when they see an exodus of refugees being forced out by Jews.  BUT THAT NEVER HAPPENED.  The Israelis implored the Arabs to stay and work together.  Everyone who left did so at the urging of other Arab states, and of their own accord.

"The Arab people of the PA" had a "legit concern" back in 1947, however, they decided to piss away their chance to negotiate and create a state of their own, and instead chose to abandon their land in order to allow other Arabs to come in and anhilliate Israel.  If they had won, the world would have muttered and shook it's collective head for a while, and then we would all have promptly forgotten about it.  Meanwhile, there'd be millions more dead Jews to add to the pile that Hitler started.  Fortiunately, the Arabs lost, and I'm sorry but no matter how you look at it, losers have to make concessions.  Israel would have been well within it's rights to have annexed all of "Palestine".  Instead they've spent the last half a century fighting wars against various states, seizing land, and then giving it back in the hope that showing their goodwill might lead to a permanent peace.  All in all, they've been the only reasonable party in the entire region.


----------



## Andyboy (25 Aug 2005)

Jed said:
			
		

> I might just be mad enough to do something about the unjust and unfair actions.



Something like murdering women and children? Think about what you are saying for a second, please. People have been thrown off of their land fairly regularly throughout the history of Canada and yet we don't have terrorism here. Why do you suppose that is?


----------



## paracowboy (25 Aug 2005)

in my eyes, the entire disagreement became irrelevent once the Palestinians started to teach their children to surround gunmen in order to a) shield them from Israeli return fire
b) get shot by Israeli return fire and become media fodder;
when they exported terror to the cities and airports of uninvolved nations;
when they began to deliberately target innocent civilians;
when they used UN money intended to purchase food, medicine, and other humanitarian supplies to buy arms and explosives;
when they invaded another country;
when they used UN offices and funds to create hate posters;
when they used Ambulances to ferry arms, ordnance, and fighters;
when they started to teach their pre-school children to kill;
and
when they started to teach their children to want to die.   
By indoctrinating their children into a cult of death, to me, they completely invalidated any legitimate complaints they had.


----------



## Jed (25 Aug 2005)

OK, the point I was making is that there are two sides to this issue. "Paracowboy, I agree with you on why we fight terrorism. 48th Hi, No, I am not advocating the slaughter of women and kids, suicide bombers, etc. From what I see and have experienced, there is plenty enough prejudice and unchristian actions occurring within Isreal proper so no group of peoples are completely innocent.

One thing that I find particularly unjust within the whole middle east region, is within the "Arab countries" the christains get subtly put down on a regular basis and within Isreal, the jewish faith is almost a requirement for being a fine upstanding member of the community or for the privilege of occupying settlement territory etc.

I am glad I live in Canada where I can practise the religion I want and bitch about things I do not think are just, and most of the time only hot language is exchanged, not bombs and bullets.


----------



## Andyboy (25 Aug 2005)

Jed,

I was the one who asked the question about murdering women and children, I knew the answer but I just wanted you think a bit about what you were saying. I know you wouldn't do anything remotely like that, nor would anyone here for that matter, but that is what is happening there, so I find the analogy a bit of a stretch.

Incidently my father's family owns and operates a farm on land that had previously belonged to French farmers. Not worried much about someone from Louisiana or Cape Breton blowing up schoolbusses in Halifax though, I guess maybe they've moved on with their lives.   


Thanks,

Andrew

** Edited to add "my" **


----------



## 48Highlander (25 Aug 2005)

Jed said:
			
		

> One thing that I find particularly unjust within the whole middle east region, is within the "Arab countries" the christains get subtly put down on a regular basis and within Isreal, the jewish faith is almost a requirement for being a fine upstanding member of the community or for the privilege of occupying settlement territory etc.



Are you out of your mind?  Where do you get your information?  The Michael Moore School for Middle East Studies?  20% of Israel is non-Jewish, 14.6% Mulsim, 2.1% Christian, and 3.2% "other".



> Israel has no constitution; however, the law provides for freedom of worship, and the Government generally respects this right in practice.
> 
> There was no change in the status of respect for religious freedom during the period covered by this report. The Basic Law describes Israel as a "Jewish" and "democratic" state. The overwhelming majority of non-Jewish citizens are Muslims, Druze, and Christians. Of this group, most are Arabs, and are subject to various forms of discrimination, some of which have religious dimensions. Israeli Arabs, temporary residents, and other non-Jewish Israelis, are, in fact, generally free to practice their religions.



There ya go.  Sure, some discrimination exists as it does everywhere else.  Members of all religions are free to practice as they wish though, and equal opportunities exist for everyone.  The only notable exception is that non-Jews may not serve in the Israeli military, except in special Druze units.  I would think the fact that Muslims and Arabs hold positions within the government should keep people from making silly accusations like yours.


----------



## Jed (25 Aug 2005)

48th Hi - No I am not "out of my mind" I am quite aware of the percentages of population break down with Isreal and the surrounding Arab States as well.  I speak from personal experience and it was quite a bit more uncomfortable for me in Isreal. Who knows what can be applied to the general Isreali population wrt predudicial attitudes etc. ?

Anyway, I just felt you were pretty one sided on your view to the point that you did not even recognize the other side so that is why I commented. Seems like you take the approach that if someone is not in my camp then he must be an enemy and I will take him out with maximum force on the target. I find this to be a waste of ammunition as well as putting up obstacles to bridging any alliances that can be built with future allies etc.

Just my 2 cents, being the red neck that I am attempting to break away from my upbringing and widening my arcs. lol


----------



## 48Highlander (25 Aug 2005)

No, I just don't understand where this whole blame-Israel mindset comes from.  Same as the anti-american attitudes, I don't get them either, although I'm guessing the two are closely related.  I'm sorry if you felt you were being discriminated against during your time in Israel, but you're the first person I've heard make such a claim.

If you're going to be widening your arcs, just make sure you're not getting any friendly positions in there.


----------



## Jed (25 Aug 2005)

OK, I should probably just shake hands, 48th Hi, and back away but I have to clarify my thoughts on your last assertion suggesting a connection to the "Anti-Israeli" agenda and the "Anti-American" agenda. This is certainly not the case with me and people that I know from my part of the world. 

As for no one ever experiencing or mentioning "uncomfortable prejudice" within Israel that truly surprises me. I must have been working on the wrong side of the technical fence and had the wrong stamps on my passport etc. However, do not get me wrong: I have a few Israeli soldier acquaintances that I truly respect and would consider comrades in arms.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Aug 2005)

:boring: I can see there is no point in taking this any further with 48H.   For some reason, being critical of some of Israel's behaviour (whether it be that of the state or of groups within the state) has earned me the title of "Anti-Israeli".   I'm surprised you never called me an Anti-Semite, although I'm sure it won't be far off if we continue.   There is nothing to discuss if Israel is sacrosanct to you (Just as Palestine is sacrosanct to the left).  Anyways, I'll offer you a few points to consider if you so choose (which I doubt, but _c'est la vie_):

- At no point did I refer to the "historic nation of Palestine", so I am not sure why you stick those words in my mouth.   Palestine has been a distinct region of the Levant since the Egyptians coined the word, and a distinct province in most of the Empires that have trotted through the region.

- Irregardless of who ruled the region, there have always been Palestinians (people who live in Palestine).   Palestinians are Arabs.   The use of "Palestinian" is valuable as it denotes Arabs from the region of Palestine (as opposed to Arabs from Syria, Transjordan, Egypt, etc, etc).   I wrap no ideology up into the phrase, you chose to put it their yourself.

- If the Jews didn't "declare Independence" (through actions, not words), then why do they refer to the 1948 wars as *"The War of Independence"*?   1948 was the culmination of 70 years of politiking to form Israeli statehood, and was very much an act of "independence" for the Jews of Palestine in their relationship to Western overseers and Arab neighbours.

- I'm not even going to touch the "All 700,000 Palestinian Arabs willingly left Israel in 1948" remark. 

- Other than that, arguing about events of the establishment of Israel (which Paracowboy stated above were questionable in some respects) is moot now, I only use it to show that their are legitimate grievances that both sides point to as a justification for their cause or struggle.   What they choose to do with that justification is another story, but I don't think it undermines the fact that the various grievances have been there for the last 50 years.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Aug 2005)

Andyboy,



			
				Andyboy said:
			
		

> Thanks for the reply, I just wasn't sure which you thought it was. As some others have pointed out there are plenty of nations that have oddly shaped or discontinuous territories, some even with non-citizens occupying a sizeable chunk.



Yes, you are right, I was only voicing my opinion (and nothing more) on what I felt the future beholds.   Irregardless of how the political settelement pans out, I feel the geography of the area, political boundaries, ideology and demographics will ensure that the "status quo" of today will not be very permanent.   The Israelis exist in a sea of Arabs (some who get along with them, many who don't) and they can only wall themselves off for so long.   How long will the notion of Zionism remain strongly entrenched in a liberal Israeli society to preserve the notion of a Jewish state (which does seem at odds with our notion of a secular and democratic state being tied together)?

These are just my guesses, but - like anywhere else in history - I remain certain that the map will change a few generations from now.



> The physical aspects aside, what is it that is keeping the Pals from being a nation, themselves or someone else?



I really don't know.   Certainly, Palestinian violence and terrorism in the latest Intifada has undermined any effort on their part to be seen as wanting peace, but my understanding of the situation is that the Israelis botched the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza from the start (this is what Hammes writes).   I still find myself confused over whether the Gaza and West Bank are considered a Palestinian State or Occupied Territories.

But my personal opinion (which should be taken only as that), as I've said before, I feel that Sharon's policy of disengagement seems to be the best course right now.   The violence of the Al Aqsa Intifada has created to much blood between each side to allow for negotiations, so disengagement and a wall should allow for detente.   As well , it puts the ball firmly into the Palestinian court (here's you country, now sort yourselves out).   I still remain uneasy about the rest of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank though.



			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> in my eyes, the entire disagreement became irrelevent once the Palestinians started to....
> 
> By indoctrinating their children into a cult of death, to me, they completely invalidated any legitimate complaints they had.





			
				Andyboy said:
			
		

> Whether the grievances are legitimate or not is irrelevant In my mind.



I guess we can take that attitude, but we better be willing to push the Palestinians into the sea then.   As Brittney says, and I'm inclined to agree with _"The bottom line is that the Palestinians are still here, and you'd better be prepared to either address their grievances or kill/deport the lot of them. Treating them like wayward children will not result in any peace for either side."_   Of course, the argument cuts the other way, _"Israel is still here, and we need to address their concerns.   Treating them like invading crusaders will not result in peace for either side."_  I believe in both statements, and it is something I am trying to convey on this thread (much to the chagrin of 48thHighlander, who seems to paint me as some left-wing anti-Israeli, something I am most assuredly not).

I guess my response is this.   Irregardless of what the Palestinians do with their legitimate grievances (The Palestinians went from doing it right in the First Intifada to doing it wrong in the Al Aqsa Intifada, squandering any political capital they had.) those grievances still exist and act as a call to further conflict.   If we are not going to address issues on both sides, then there will be no peace.   As I mentioned above, I believe detente is the first step into moving back to Oslo - but given the world situation now (a Huntingtonian "Clash of Civilizations") I fear Israel/Palestine may be overtaken by the bigger picture.

Oh well, makes for an interesting world, I guess....


----------



## Jed (25 Aug 2005)

I have noted in other related newspaper articles (sorry, no source avail) that Isreal is expanding into the West Bank and that this expansion will / may cut access to Jerusalem from the PA. Does anyone have any thoughts or info on how these actions are connected to the present withdrawal from Gaza ?

Sounds like it will be a very tricky part of the world to work in over the next while.   :warstory:


----------



## 48Highlander (25 Aug 2005)

Not trying to paint you as anything, I just don't like apologists no matter who they're trying to find excuses for.   I don't care wether you're trying to justify Nazi war-crimes, or the 9-11 attacks, or the attack on Israel.   Sure, ok, you'll say you're not trying to justify them.   Then why make excuses?   On 9-12 would you have been posting things like "well, you know, the US is FAR FROM blameless for this mess...."?   Hardly.   So why pick on Israel?

edit:  you know what, forget I asked.  these conversations never get anywhere.  I'll bow out now and let you maybe get around to discussing something useful.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Aug 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Not trying to paint you as anything, I just don't like apologists no matter who they're trying to find excuses for.   I don't care wether you're trying to justify Nazi war-crimes, or the 9-11 attacks, or the attack on Israel.   Sure, ok, you'll say you're not trying to justify them.   Then why make excuses?   On 9-12 would you have been posting things like "well, you know, the US is FAR FROM blameless for this mess...."?   Hardly.   So why pick on Israel?
> 
> edit:   you know what, forget I asked.   these conversations never get anywhere.   I'll bow out now and let you maybe get around to discussing something useful.



Well, I'm certainly going to reply to that because I don't like being painted as an *apologist* either.   I've never tried to justify terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians, so don't imply that I have.   What I am pointing to is the sentiments leading us to the point we are at now.

It's a matter of causality - cause and effect.   Why do Palestinians resort to what they do?   We see the effects every day with blown up buses and dead rock-throwing kids, but basing our viewpoints and our policies off of the effects isn't (IMHO) a good way of finding a solution (short of wiping the other side off of the map).   Look to cause (which is what I'm harping at) - don't try to assign weight to the value of cause and justification, because, as Brit said, "Moral authority is in the eye of the beholder" and to others, you're weighting is useless as a frame of reference.   My understanding of both the history and the current climate leads me to believe that some causality can be found in Israel's policies (there is alot in other places as well, but that isn't what we are discussing right now) - it has nothing to do with the effect of terrorist attacks, so I'm unsure of how this makes me an apologist for terrorism and anti-semitism.

Do the same with your 9/11 reference.   I in no way "apologize" or "justify" the attacks (which struck close to home for myself), but I won't pretend that the West is completely innocent in the matter.   Over 500,000,000 Muslims have some sort of hard on for America and the West in general, and unless you can convince me that all those people have been duped, then maybe their is a legitimate reason that they have the anger and frustration that have led them to resort to violence.   Again, irregardless of effect (Al-Qa'ida and the general anti-Western violence around the globe), the cause is there for hundreds of millions of people and we need to factor it into a solution.

Go back in history to a purely Western even, and it works the same.   Cause - There were sufficient legitimate reasons behind the anger of the American colonists towards the British government's policies towards the colonies.   Effect - Was the violence of the Revolution justified?   I dunno, I guess if you are an American, it seemed justified - on the other hand, if you were a Loyalist driven from your home for remaining faithful to the Crown, you wouldn't see it that way (and of course, you could be a Cherokee and think all these guys are assholes).   Either of these attitudes does not change the fact that the cause was there.

A good metaphor is boiling water - the water is the cause and the boiling bubbles are the effect.   If we focus on the bubbles, we can't do much to lower the temperature on the water.   Ignoring the boiling water means escalation and the pot boiling right over,

And so, it goes back to what Andyboy and I discussed a few months ago on the difference between sympathy and empathy.   I'm trying to empathize with the cause, get in their shoes and see where the will to violence is, to see why the water is boiling.   Quit trying to portray me as an anti-Israeli or an apologist, sympathizing with the effect and condoning terrorist attacks.


----------



## paracowboy (25 Aug 2005)

some random points. Most of us are all on line and in agreement, with sematics set aside.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm surprised you never called me an Anti-Semite,


that term has always cracked me up when used in reference to most Jews today. The majority of Jews alive today are not Semitic. They are, for the most part, Slavs. Most Jews today are Ashkenazi (sp), Semitic Jews are Falasha. Most of them were only found in Africa until very recently. 



> - At no point did I refer to the "historic nation of Palestine", so I am not sure why you stick those words in my mouth...has been a distinct region of the Levant since the Egyptians coined the word, and a distinct province in most of the Empires that have trotted through the region.


Before they were known as Palestinians, they were known as Philistines. This hate has been goin' on a looong time!



> - If the Jews didn't "declare Independence" (through actions, not words), then why do they refer to the 1948 wars as *"The War of Independence"*?


 Independence from Mother England.



> - I'm not even going to touch the "All 700,000 Palestinian Arabs willingly left Israel in 1948" remark.


 wise choice. The Irgun were terrorists. And highly trained ones, as Britain had brought IRA members to teach them, as well as SOE operatives during the Second World War. Kinda back-fired when Britain tried to renege on promises made. If you get the chance to pick it up, read The Roots of Counter-Insurgency by Iain F.W. Beckett. Some good stuff on Palestine prior to 1945. Also, anything you can find on Mickey Marcus, Orde Wingate, the Haganah, the Irgun, the Palmach, and the Stern Gang. 
While I am firmly on Israel's side today, I will not blindly support all of the actions of the State's Founders, or of the various governments since.


----------



## mdh (25 Aug 2005)

> Orde Wingate



I'll second Paracowboy on that one... ;D

cheers, all, mdh


----------



## paracowboy (25 Aug 2005)

more random points:





			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> How long will the notion of Zionism remain strongly entrenched in a liberal Israeli society to preserve the notion of a Jewish state (which does seem at odds with our notion of a secular and democratic state being tied together)?


their nation is democratic, but with strong theocratic overtones. However, you don't have to be a Jew to vote. Unlike other theocracies that shall remain nameless.



> Certainly, Palestinian violence and terrorism in the latest Intifada has undermined any effort on their part to be seen as wanting peace


 they've shot themselves in the foot. They've spent so much indoctrinating their people with an undying hatred, and a death wish, that they can't control the gunmen. The lunatics have seized control of the asylum.



> I still remain uneasy about the rest of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank though.


me, too. They should expand, for security's sake. They should withdraw for public perception. Which way they're gonna go, I dunno.



> The Palestinians went from doing it right in the First Intifada


 yup, rocketting/mortaring Israel, blowing up stuff, sending children with lethal slingshots and bolts to attack Israeli soldiers, then crowd around gunmen so the Israelis appear to be murdering children, etc, etc. All the while playing the media like grand pianos. Actually, to be more accurate, like kazoos.
They did it right.



> makes for an interesting world, I guess....


may you live in interesting times


----------



## Andyboy (26 Aug 2005)

Infanteer,

I've got a few things to say but I am far too lazy to use the quote feature so please bear with me.

First, thanks for the clarification, it seemed like you saw the physical geography as the main determinant to Pal statehood, but I understand better what you meant now. Sort of a straw that breaks the camels back kind of thing? I agree that it's a problem but not really one that can't be overcome provided both parties are willing to work together to make the Pal state work alongside the Israeli state. Unfortunately the Pals have spooled themselves up for war (or their version of it at least) to such an extent they are not going to be able to stop any time soon. The leadership has convinced the population that Jews (not Israelis, but Jews) are an enemy that is best off dead so how do you convince them otherwise now?

Secondly, who really controls Hamas and the rest of the armed factions who represent the Pals? Do they actually represent the majority of the Pals desires? How would anyone know? If 100% of the Pals wanted them to disarm would they? I don't know, I doubt anyone does, what is certain though is that those armed factions took some horrifying decisions on behalf of the Pals for which someone has to be held to account. 

Third, the morality is in the eye of the beholder theme is a bit tired in my opinion. As a conscious, free, thinking, human being it is certainly my right and duty to point out actions that I think are immoral. The notion that I have no business judging someone else suggests that my moral convictions are no better than anyone else's which is hooey. My moral convictions are based on the principle of "do unto others". Certainly I can judge the actions of someone who, say, rapes a child, can I not? Does the rapist's viewpoint or moral convictions really matter? Doesn't the action speak to those convictions? Do we really need to go through the list of things that we can all agree are morally wrong? I doubt it. I have a sneaking suspicion that the unwillingness to make judgments says more about an inability to articulate one's own morality than anything else. 

Last, you make a good point about ignoring legitimate grievances however what you are missing is the danger of addressing legitimate grievances due to illegitimate actions. If you respond to illegitimate actions (terrorism, for example) to address legitimate grievances (land claims, for example) you legitimize those actions. In other words giving in to terrorism causes further terrorism, which was my point when I said that the legitimacy of their grievances was irrelevant. Certainly the land will eventually go back to the Arabs, perhaps one day all of Israel will go back to them, but why on Gods green earth would anyone suggest giving it back while the Arabs are ruled by the thugs that they are right now?

Good discussion,
Andrew


----------



## Infanteer (26 Aug 2005)

Andy,

Tough questions, and I'm just an armchair observer, so I won't pretend I know.

First point on convincing - I'd say it works the other way as well, we are all strongly convinced that there is no hope for the Palestinian Arabs except a suicide bombers vest, how do we convince the world that they will accept peace (if they are indeed willing)?   I still think the answer is detente; disengagement and the wall.

Second point - your guess is as good as mine.

Third point on morality.   Nowhere does it say that you can't judge and comment on the action of others; what I am getting at is that, because humans are complex and odd things, your judgement is going to be worth the paper it is printed on to the guy who disagrees with it (to quote Brit) with regards to getting something done.   You don't need to convince me that blowing up a bus is not a good way to show you want peace, we need to convince the Palestinians.   This is not from the fact that I have an inability to articulate my own moral code (which I've done numerous times around these forums), it's only that me adding "Fucking Palestinian murderers" or "Osama is going to pay" or "McDonalds is the Devil!" to the thread doesn't do much in really getting to the crux of the matter.   Your notion of the rapist is a bit different - committing the crime of rape within our society (Canada) brings in absolutes.   Within our system rape has been deemed taboo, and we have the full weight of the justice system to back it up.   Black and white, right and wrong exist.   

But when you go above this level to societies interacting, where does the moral authority to pronounce right from wrong come from?   If 4 million Palestinians have a problem, and they are backed by a the sentiments of a billion Muslims (I know, it would be foolish to think that all Muslims have the same politics, but I think we can both admit right now that the Islamic world is pretty uniform in its opinion of Israel), and many in the West champion their cause (Edward Said has a big audience) then who is to say that their opinions have any less moral authority than ours?   Can you, as a conscious, free, thinking human being agree with me that those other guys are probably also conscious, free, thinking human beings who probably feel the same about their moral authority?   I always like to use the "Lowest Common Denominator" thought experiment - if there was just you and the other guy, who would be right?

Ultimately, I think "right" will be realized by taking one of two paths (that Britney highlighted earlier) - we either have agreement and peace (which, like all politics, will demand concessions from both), or we scorch their will to resist to the ground to utterly convince them that our viewpoint is the one to take (the Hama method, what we did with the Germans and the Japanese).

Fourth point - you are absolutely right about later actions.   My causality argument was a bit simplified to get my point across and ignored what I think is the second part of the idea, action and reaction.   Once you have a cause and effect, you get an action and a reaction.   Continuous action and reaction tends to muddle up a clear picture, as action and reaction become cause in their own right.   However, I still think you have to separate what you feel is genuine cause from what you see to be illegitimate action, because saying _"You have no right to any political recourse now because of terrorist attacks!"_ would be pretty unproductive in deescalation (Indeed, if we used that tact, the Jews of Palestine would have never gotten the British and the UN online with a Jewish state - as Paracowboy mentioned, their past is less than rosy).   Hold out the carrot to those who wish to negotiate, and use the stick against those who continue to attack your innocent civilians, and be willing to make the concessions.   It should legitimize your actions in the eyes of others and delegitimize that of the other guy - the essence of 4th Generation War fought on the moral plane (Hammes' chapters on the Intifadas are excellent).

As for giving back the land, do you mean Israel as a whole or just Gaza/West Bank?   I think it is necessary to give them the land (all of it) in the West Bank/Gaza as was layed out by Oslo and to let them have their own state as it will be the only way to convince them (and the anti-Israeli crowd at large) that it is not Israel that is keeping the Palestinians down.   Despite the fact that all those who were intimate in the process generally feel that Yasser Arafat was the key roadblock to success (I've seen this from diplomat Dennis Ross, in the writings of Friedman, in a quote by Saudi Prince Bandar, etc, etc) - a view I believe in - fingers always point to Israel as the problem, and so the violence continues.   I say that if Palestine puts thugs, gangsters, and terrorists in charge, then they'll reap what they sow.   Detente, disengagement, and the wall will do the best to ensure that this time, all the Palestinians (and their supporters) can do is point the fingers at themselves (of course, judging from the world right now, fingers will somehow go to the United States....).

Anyways, just my thoughts

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Shec (26 Aug 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> some random points. Most of us are all on line and in agreement, with sematics set aside.
> that term has always cracked me up when used in reference to most Jews today. The majority of Jews alive today are not Semitic. They are, for the most part, Slavs. Most Jews today are Ashkenazi (sp), Semitic Jews are Falasha. Most of them were only found in Africa until very recently.
> Before they were known as Palestinians, they were known as Philistines. This hate has been goin' on a looong time!
> Independence from Mother England.
> ...



At the risk of being pedantic maybe I can clarify part of the above.     Ashkenazi Jews hail from Eastern and Central Europe,   Sephardic Jews hail from the Middle East and the Mediterranean.   Many of them were expelled from North African countries when the State of Israel was created, the number is approximately equal to the original Palestinian refugees.     An essential difference is that the Sephardim were integrated into Israeli society whereas the Palestinians ( or "the cousins" as they colloqually referred to by Israelis) were penned up in refugee camps by their Arab cousins for whatever reasons.      The Falashas, from Ethiopia, are neither Askhenazi or Sephardi.   They are considered the mythical lost tribe and were brought to Israel in the '70's &   '80's when Ethiopia went down the toilet.   I say mythical because there a several other Jewish sects that make the same claim, not that it matters.

As far as the Irgun & Stern Gang are concerned, both were indeed extremists and terrorists.     The former was a splinter group from the Haganah (the "official" Zionist DND if you will and of which Palmach was the mobile strike force and which owes much to Orde Wingate, so much so that Israel's premiere institute of sports medicine is named after him) and the Stern Gang was a splinter group from Irgun.   In 1948 Haganah quite literally had to shoot it out with Irgun/Stern Gang to rein them in and so the IDF was formed.   If you want more details read up on what is called the Altalena incident.   That memory has re-surfaced in the present day with the extreme right resistance to Israeli government's disengagement policy.

I'll shut up now. I've been following this interesting debate however I have been refraining from more actively participating because my own views are very subjective and, frankly,   they ain't gonna change.   So I'll just interject with clarifications such as this one. .


----------



## paracowboy (27 Aug 2005)

Shec said:
			
		

> Ashkenazi Jews hail from Eastern and Central Europe,   Sephardic Jews hail from the Middle East and the Mediterranean.   Many of them were expelled from North African countries when the State of Israel was created, the number is approximately equal to the original Palestinian refugees...The Falashas, from Ethiopia, are neither Askhenazi or Sephardi.


 Thank you for that, Shec. You are spot-on. (I just re-checked my reference material. Which I should have done before posting. I am a dumb@ss.)


----------



## Andyboy (28 Aug 2005)

Infanteer, good post, thanks for taking the time. I think we are much closer on this than we think. 


"...how do we convince the world that they will accept peace (if they are indeed willing)?   I still think the answer is detente; disengagement and the wall."

I don't think we need to, I think they need to OR we make them willing.



"Second point - your guess is as good as mine."

Exactly, and ultimately that is the point, as I see it, to electing people to speak for us to other countries. Other countries may not like what we have to say and vice versa, but at least when we level their cities we can do so knowing that they are reaping what they sow.



"Third point on morality.   Nowhere does it say that you can't judge and comment on the action of others; what I am getting at is that, because humans are complex and odd things, your judgement is going to be worth the paper it is printed on to the guy who disagrees with it (to quote Brit) with regards to getting something done."

Indeed...but so what? I have judged the action, not the person, not even the method and reasoning behind the decision to take the action. Those are not of any immediate concern to me, what is a concern to me is the action itself and letting the individual, or society, understand that that action is unacceptable. 



 "You don't need to convince me that blowing up a bus is not a good way to show you want peace, we need to convince the Palestinians."   

I think we need to convince the Pals, Arabs, Muslims, and the world at large that blowing up a bus is not a good way to do anything. 



"This is not from the fact that I have an inability to articulate my own moral code (which I've done numerous times around these forums) it's only that me adding "******* Palestinian murderers" or "Osama is going to pay" or "McDonalds is the Devil!" to the thread doesn't do much in really getting to the crux of the matter."   


Yes you have, I apologize if you inferred that from my statements. You are correct that using rhetoric like the examples you've used isn't helpful, but neither is taking a neutral tone with respect to the actions. It is possible to judge an action without judging a person or a culture. IE. "Murdering those civilians was a disgusting act", vs. "those Pals are a disgusting people for murdering those civilians". Judging the act itself without judging the person who committed it is useful in letting that person, as well as any observers, know where you stand with respect to the act. As a society we have not done a very good job of the former out of fear of doing the latter. 




"Your notion of the rapist is a bit different - committing the crime of rape within our society (Canada) brings in absolutes.   Within our system rape has been deemed taboo, and we have the full weight of the justice system to back it up.   Black and white, right and wrong exist.   

But when you go above this level to societies interacting, where does the moral authority to pronounce right from wrong come from?"

The act of rape is not wrong because the system says it is wrong, it is wrong because we as individuals have decided that it is wrong and have gone so far as to create a system to codify it. Labeling an act right or wrong is not done out of some desire to judge individual people as moral or immoral but as a way to prevent those acts from happening as much as is possible. Similarly the moral authority to pronounce right and wrong at a societal level comes not from a desire to feel superior to other societies but from the desire to prevent the act from being perpetrated on (and in) our society. 

Frankly if the people of Lower Blueballistan decide amongst themselves that murder as we define it is a legitimate means to resolve grievances, well, that is their concern. My concern is that it will be used by their society on another and when or if comes to pass that they do just that, it behooves us to let them know we don't find it acceptable.  



 "If 4 million Palestinians have a problem, and they are backed by a the sentiments of a billion Muslims, and many in the West champion their cause then who is to say that their opinions have any less moral authority than ours?"

Reason should decide morality, not consensus. 



"Can you, as a conscious, free, thinking human being agree with me that those other guys are probably also conscious, free, thinking human beings who probably feel the same about their moral authority?"

Maybe, I don't know how they feel with respect their moral authority, they are they and I am I. No man can claim to know the mind of another much less the minds of another society at large. I'm quite certain though that there is a variety of opinions about it, but I do hope to god that it is a minority that have no moral problem with deliberately killing civilians. I suspect we will never know, just as we will never really know how many Germans or Japanese had no moral problem with what their armed representatives were doing. The point is not whether or not they feel they have the moral authority to deliberately target civilians but whether they SHOULD feel moral authority to deliberately kill women and children. From what I can understand that is the point to the GWOT; convince the world at large that deliberately targeting civilians is verboten before the world at large decides that it isn't. If the world decides that deliberately targeting civilians is kosher, as we did in WWII, they will lose.        



"I always like to use the "Lowest Common Denominator" thought experiment - if there was just you and the other guy, who would be right?"

In that instance who was right would be decided the same way it has been decided since the dawn of time. The saying "might makes right" exists for a reason, why we have the "might" and they don't is for another discussion. For the record though I happen to believe it is BECAUSE of our respective moral codes that we have the might. 



"Ultimately, I think "right" will be realized by taking one of two paths - we either have agreement and peace, or we scorch their will to resist to the ground to utterly convince them that our viewpoint is the one to take."

Yup, see WWII. 



"Fourth point - you are absolutely right about later actions.   My causality argument was a bit simplified to get my point across and ignored what I think is the second part of the idea, action and reaction.   Once you have a cause and effect, you get an action and a reaction.   Continuous action and reaction tends to muddle up a clear picture, as action and reaction become cause in their own right."

I don't disagree with that.



 "However, I still think you have to separate what you feel is genuine cause from what you see to be illegitimate action, because saying "You have no right to any political recourse now because of terrorist attacks!" would be pretty unproductive in de-escalation..."

That is not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying that political recourse is the only choice they have, indeed it is the only option they ever had. They may one day be Arabs ruling the entire world from Jerusalem, I could really care less provided Terrorism has been abandoned as a means of internal and external control.



 "(Indeed, if we used that tact, the Jews of Palestine would have never gotten the British and the UN online with a Jewish state - as Paracowboy mentioned, their past is less than rosy)"

Correct, and perhaps we SHOULD have taken that tact then, unfortunately we allowed the circumstances and objectives to cloud our judgment of right and wrong. Pity, perhaps we could have avoided the whole mess? 



"Hold out the carrot to those who wish to negotiate, and use the stick against those who continue to attack your innocent civilians, and be willing to make the concessions. It should legitimize your actions in the eyes of others and delegitimize that of the other guy - the essence of 4th Generation War fought on the moral plane (Hammes' chapters on the Intifadas are excellent).
"

I don't disagree except that is to clarify. You said "...and be willing to make concessions" but I think you should have included "to those willing to negotiate, not those attacking civilians". In this instance can we separate the two? It doesn't seem like it to me.



"As for giving back the land, do you mean Israel as a whole or just Gaza/West Bank?   I think it is necessary to give them the land (all of it) in the West Bank/Gaza as was layed out by Oslo and to let them have their own state as it will be the only way to convince them (and the anti-Israeli crowd at large) that it is not Israel that is keeping the Palestinians down.   Despite the fact that all those who were intimate in the process generally feel that Yasser Arafat was the key roadblock to success - a view I believe in - fingers always point to Israel as the problem, and so the violence continues.   I say that if Palestine puts thugs, gangsters, and terrorists in charge, then they'll reap what they sow.   Detente, disengagement, and the wall will do the best to ensure that this time, all the Palestinians (and their supporters) can do is point the fingers at themselves (of course, judging from the world right now, fingers will somehow go to the United States....)."

I mean the whole kit and kaboodle, I think that it is inevitable that at some point majority will rule in the region. Might be 1000 years from now, might be 50. Either way hopefully by then the majority will have learned of the futility and folly in targeting civilians. 


Thanks,
Andrew


----------



## Andyboy (28 Aug 2005)

Shec said:
			
		

> I'll shut up now. I've been following this interesting debate however I have been refraining from more actively participating because my own views are very subjective and, frankly,   they ain't gonna change.   So I'll just interject with clarifications such as this one. .



Actually Shec I think you post was very informative and apropos to the general point I am trying to make, thanks for taking the time.

I think sometimes we get a bit wrapped up in the minutiae of issues that we forget to look at the larger picture. Whenever I read about "Lost Tribes" and so forth I remember that the struggles in that part of the world are really really really old. We're newcomers on the scene as far as they're concerned and I think the only reason they don't like us is because we've stuck our nose in to their affairs and worse still taken the Israeli side. 

I think that the question as to whether they have a claim to the land or not is irrelevant,   and in fact they may in fact have a legitimate claim to the land and the Israelis might be all wrong. The people of Germany had a claim to the Rhineland in the 30s after they lost (but weren't defeated) in WWI. I think most of the world thought that they had a claim to it. I certainly think they had a legitimate claim to it and understand their joy when they took it back. None of that is relevant though, what is relevant is that Germany in the 30s was run by Hitler and giving it back to them while he was running things was a really unwise thing to do. Not because the people of Germany didn't want it back nor because the people of the Rhineland didn't want it, and not because the people of the world didn't want it but because the result of giving it back was bad all around. 

Similarly the people of the Middle East on the whole have a legitimate claim to renegotiate the deal that made Israel a state but not so long as the tactic of deliberately targeting non-combatants is seen as a legitimate tool to a dangerously powerful part of their societies. How many Germans were members of the Nazi party in German in the thirties? 2%-3%. I can't remember but it certainly wasn't a majority, everyone loves a winner though and every time those who employ what we call terrorism can claim a victory their popularity will increase, just as the popularity of Naziism rose with every gain Hitler made diplomatically and militarily. Contrary to what some people will claim, victory in places like Iraq does not lead to a growing opposition, only defeat will cause our opposition to grow.Every concession that we in the "West" make is a victory for our enemies, whether we acknowledge it as such or not. Our enemies have already claimed victory (through Terrorism) in Gaza just as they claimed victory in Somalia, Lebanon, Gulf War 1, Afghanistan (Soviet), Bosnia... 

How many "victories "will it take until they get really motivated? I think that we are in our generation's version of the 1930s. I hope to god I'm wrong. I don't want to go to war, I like my life.

Andrew



Edited to add: All of that being said, Gaza is not the Rhineland, and Abbas is not Hitler. The comparison is apt on some levels, but is not exact by any means.


----------



## Jed (29 Aug 2005)

I just want to express my thanks to all you veteran army.ca posters for the great discussions you have had in this forum. Very informative and relevant to helping me understand the essential issue.


----------



## paracowboy (29 Aug 2005)

Andyboy said:
			
		

> Actually Shec I think you post was very informative and apropos


concur!


----------



## Shec (29 Aug 2005)

Thanks AndyBoy & Paracowboy, 

I agree entirely with you Andrew when you write "I think that the question as to whether they have a claim to the land or not is irrelevant".   It's irrelevant to both sides.     Far right Jewish religious zealots and extremists need to forget their claim that they have a Biblical claim to all of Judea and Samaria (ie. the entire West Bank) and Arabs need to give up their claim to metropolitan Israel.      The former are, at the risk of being heretical, clinging to a history so ancient it is almost mythical,   and the latter seem to forget that:

(1) Much of the land was legally and willingly sold by landowning Arab gentry to the Jewish Colonial Trust during Ottoman and Mandate times,
(2) that (as someone, I think either Paracowboy or 48 Highlander, has pointed out above)   Israel invited them to stay and live in piece in its Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel , to wit: 
   


> WE APPEAL â â€ in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months â â€ to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.
> 
> WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.



(3) That it was the embryo State of Israel that was invaded as that Declaration was made.

Furthermore, and perhaps at the risk of being too cynical but as someone else too has pointed out,   this enmity has been going on for millenia, since Cain slew Abel, and it isn't going to stop anytime soon.

All of this brings me back to my first post on page 2 of this thread, the real issue is one of defensible borders and if that means holding the high ground on the western half of the West Bank, so be it.     Unfortunately renegotiating isn't the sole solution -- there have been 3 terror attacks since the withdrawal from Gaza last week.   So much for due process.

Like you and I most people want peace.   But if you want peace, well just look at the Queen's Own Rifles' motto.


Jeff


----------



## Mojo Magnum (29 Aug 2005)

Not that my post will change anything but,

I can't help but think that the real hope lies in educating the young in both nations as to how a peaceful future is possible.


Teach the children and you bring change to tomorrow,  from the inside.


----------



## Glorified Ape (2 Sep 2005)

Shec said:
			
		

> I agree entirely with you Andrew when you write "I think that the question as to whether they have a claim to the land or not is irrelevant".   It's irrelevant to both sides.     Far right Jewish religious zealots and extremists need to forget their claim that they have a Biblical claim to all of Judea and Samaria (ie. the entire West Bank)  The former are, at the risk of being heretical, clinging to a history so ancient it is almost mythical,



I agree. I've often thought: why don't I go to Africa, stick a flag in the ground, and say "this land is mine because one of my primate ancestors evolved here millions of years ago" or go to Scotland, stick a flag in the ground and say "Hey, my Grandma was born here - this land's mine." While I'm at it, I could write a book claiming that God said the land was mine and cite that book as another justification of my entitlement to the land. You have to wonder at the stupidity of some people.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Sep 2005)

I like to say the same thing about Delgamukw.


----------



## Andyboy (2 Sep 2005)

Well so long fellas, this is where I came in.


----------



## Shec (3 Sep 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> > I agree entirely with you Andrew when you write "I think that the question as to whether they have a claim to the land or not is irrelevant".  It's irrelevant to both sides.   Far right Jewish religious zealots and extremists need to forget their claim that they have a Biblical claim to all of Judea and Samaria (ie. the entire West Bank)  The former are, at the risk of being heretical, clinging to a history so ancient it is almost mythical,
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. I've often thought: why don't I go to Africa, stick a flag in the ground, and say "this land is mine because one of my primate ancestors evolved here millions of years ago" or go to Scotland, stick a flag in the ground and say "Hey, my Grandma was born here - this land's mine." While I'm at it, I could write a book claiming that God said the land was mine and cite that book as another justification of my entitlement to the land. You have to wonder at the stupidity of some people.



Glorified APe,

I don't appreciate you editing my point before quoting it.   You have skewed the entire context of that paragraph.   I presented a balanced comment by referring to both sides in the dispute, you could at least have done the courtesy of respecting that when quoting me.


----------

