Not even one "settlement" must be removed

[Herschel]

Regarding the issue of removing Jewish communities ("settlements") from so-called Arab territories, there is no legitimate reason whatsoever for removing even one. Moreover, there is every practical reason for leaving each and every one of them in place.

To begin with, the fundamental, underlying motivation for removing Jewish settlements is hopelessly flawed. Why must all Arab territories - disputed or otherwise - be Judenrein (Jew-free) as a pre-condition to any negotiated settlement? Isn't that racism?

cut

Secondly, the willingness to dismantle existing settlements is and always has been considered a grave weakness in the eyes of the Arab world - a weakness that only encourages the enemy and strengthens their terror infrastructures, including the master terrorist himself, Abdul Rauf el-Codba el-Husseini, aka Yasser Arafat, and his henchmen in the PLO.

While I am sorely tempted at this point to invoke our unalienable, biblical rights to ALL the Land of Israel, the third reason I am citing for not removing settlements is the most pragmatic reason of them all-namely, the strategic necessity of maintaining a Jewish presence in a demonstrably hostile and unstable region that could turn combative in a heartbeat.

cut

http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ViewsPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article%5El3289&enZone=Views&enVersion=0&

While some concepts in the article may seem inappropriate, interesting arguements are made.

[Carl21014]

1. If you won't give the land back...

then a one state solution is the only possibility. Give the Palestinians full citizenship and voting rights.

[Muddleoftheroad]

2. Thank you for that unrealistic assessment

The one-state fantasy is DOA.

[Carl21014]

3. I'm sorry

Should I have picked the realistic scenerio where the Palestinians just vanish?

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. Nothing realistic about that either

The Palestinians will get a state at whatever point they decide to eliminate terror and join the community of nations. So far, that date is long in coming.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. "All them Jews"

Are living on disputed territory. Yes, both sides make claim to the same land and no one will ever be entirely happy about how it all sorts out.

As for 1967 borders, they are done.

[Carl21014]

13. They aren't done!

Hard line statements like that ignore the intafada that continues and will continue until everyone gets on their side of the green line.

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. The Green Line

Is NOT a formal border. To have a formal border, you have to have a peace agreement. When such an agreement is made, the Green Line WON'T be the final border. Land, water rights, air rights, travel rights, trade, etc. will ALL be part of a final settlement.

[drdon326]

17. Oh Carl.....

Seriously,have you read the Hamas Covenant ??

HAMAS doesnt even recognize israel....letalone a green line.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm

The Covenant
of the
Islamic Resistance Movement

Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. "Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know."

Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question. Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers?

"But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah." (The Cow - verse 120).
There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with. As in said in the honourable Hadith:

"The people of Syria are Allah's lash in His land. He wreaks His vengeance through them against whomsoever He wishes among His slaves It is unthinkable that those who are double-faced among them should prosper over the faithful. They will certainly die out of grief and desperation."
...................................................................

The question of the liberation of Palestine is bound to three circles: the Palestinian circle, the Arab circle and the Islamic circle. Each of these circles has its role in the struggle against Zionism. Each has its duties, and it is a horrible mistake and a sign of deep ignorance to overlook any of these circles. Palestine is an Islamic land which has the first of the two kiblahs (direction to which Moslems turn in praying), the third of the holy (Islamic) sanctuaries, and the point of departure for Mohamed's midnight journey to the seven heavens (i.e. Jerusalem).

"Praise be unto him who transported his servant by night, from the sacred temple of Mecca to the farther temple of Jerusalem, the circuit of which we have blessed, that we might show him some of our signs; for Allah is he who heareth, and seeth." (The Night-Journey - verse 1).
Since this is the case, liberation of Palestine is then an individual duty for very Moslem wherever he may be. On this basis, the problem should be viewed. This should be realised by every Moslem.

The day the problem is dealt with on this basis, when the three circles mobilize their capabilities, the present state of affairs will change and the day of liberation will come nearer.

"Verily ye are stronger than they, by reason of the terror cast into their breasts from Allah. This, because they are not people of prudence." (The Emigration - verse 13).
......................................................................


plenty more to read.very refreshing

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. Do you often speak with Hamas members?

I couldn't stomach it myself. I would also be inclined to take actions that would get me killed.

As for driving Israel anywhere, your concept of war and military might needs a bit of revision. Modern armies fight using high tech weapons that require constant updating and maintenance. They are not like the flintlocks of old that last for 20 or 30 years.

That means Israel can be cut off from needed sources of supply and parts and gradually be weakened as oil poor nations fear offending the oil rich enemies of Israel.

And driving a nation into the sea also means crippling its economy. The endless rounds of terror cripple tourism which is a major source of employment and hard currency to Israel. Further, constantly being on a war footing harms the Israeli economy and keeps needed skilled workers from their jobs.

[Carl21014]

32. That's the price for being a hardliner!

And driving a nation into the sea also means crippling its economy. The endless rounds of terror cripple tourism which is a major source of employment and hard currency to Israel. Further, constantly being on a war footing harms the Israeli economy and keeps needed skilled workers from their jobs.

Continued occupation and stealing of land though illegal settlements, and the oppressing of the Palistinian people continues a cycle of violence. It's Israel's choice to continue bloodshed.

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. Israel has no choice

It's enemies seek to destroy it, no matter what it does.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[drdon326]

10. uhhh...

what exactly did you write??

if it gets deleted again,i can then tell you.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. Read the rules

They explain it very nicely.

[Carl21014]

15. No not really!

Unless(as I guessed) using the term Jew is considered bigoted? Could you possibly answer the question instead of referring me to the rules again?

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Trying to help

I sent you a PM.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tinoire]

50. The support for a One-State solution is growing daily both in the US &

in Israel. This is precisely why you hear so many hawks suddenly wanting to "embrace" the 2-state solution. They see the writing on the wall but they're not sincere enough to invest the good-will necessary to come up with a just & equitable proposal so what you get is lots of lip-service and hand-wringing about "if only the Palestinians would x,y,z".

So keep pushing for the One-State solution. We'll get there yet because a fair 2-State solution is DOA. You can't even ressuscitate that beast. By the time an idiot like Bush is pushing for it, you know the idea is as dead as a door-knob.

Ignore the neigh-sayers. They told my people we'd never sit in front of the bus either. The Palestinians shall overcome.

[Jim Sagle]

51. The Pal "activists" don't sit in front of buses, they blow up buses,

thereby forfeitng any claim they ever had to a moral cause.

[Muddleoftheroad]

52. Growing daily

I assume you mean by percentages. You could grow from two people to three and have a 50% increase.

The one-state solution is no solution at all. Even the most liberal Jews I know are appalled at the discussion of such a destruction of Israel.

So, rather than push for a fair two-state solution, you prefer to push for a solution that ends Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people? Yeah, that makes sense.

I am especially offended at the coopting of civil rights jargon for the Palestinian "struggle." Dr. King never condoned sending new mothers off to blow up people. Dr. King never condoned blowing up little children.

The Jewish people have been friends of ours for decades. This is one African-American who will not abandon them in their hour of need.

BTW, neigh-sayers is only good with horses. I think you mean naysayers.

[_Jumper_]

95. MLK

I agree twith you on a one-state solution but do you really think MLK would support a nation that exists just for one group?

[Darranar]

53. The increase is too slow to make much of a difference...

The Israelis will never, in the forseeable future, accept a two-state solution.

The evidence suggests that both peoples are willing to accept a just two-state solution, for which the Geneva Accords is a good model.

The sooner there is peace, the better for the common people involved in this mess, and it seems to me that an insistence on a one-state solution will block such peace.

[Jack Rabbit]

82. Dissenting: Why I favor a two-state solution

I don't think I fit into the camp you are describing and I support a two-state solution over a one-state solution.

I know where you and many who support a one-state solution are coming from. It is a perfectly honorable proposal made with the best motives rooted in a love of democratic principle. However, a two-state solution is not in conflict with democratic principles. Hopefully, the result will be two democratic states. These two democracies, if they remain or evolve into democracies, will be more stable than a single state bi-national democracy.

There are two nations that exist west of the Jordan and they are divided on more-or-less geographical lines roughly corresponding to the Green Line, established by the 1949 armistice. Within the Green Line, 80% of the population is Jewish and in the West Bank and Gaza about 92% of the population is Palestinian Arab. It shouldn't be too difficult to adjust borders using the Green Line as a starting point for negotiations.

A two-state solution will be easier to sell to Israeli Jews. Whatever one's reservations about Israel coming into being, let us not forget why it seemed like such a good idea in 1948. For centuries, Jews had been a minority group wherever they lived, subject to harsh persecution. This culminated in the Holocaust. It should also be noted that Germany in the early twentieth century would have been thought a poor candidate to become an anti-Semitic state; Jews were well assimilated into German society. Yet, Hitler rose to power and began a program to systematically murder Jews. Many Jews now living in Israel either personally survived Hitler's death camps or are the children and grandchildren of those who did. Rightly or wrongly, they will not feel safe in a state where Jews are a minority. They are not going to give up their Jewish state.

A second reason to favor a two-state solution over a single state is that there are extremists on both sides of the conflict whose idea of a resolution is to drive the other group out. Sheikh Yassin has proposed that Jews "return" to Europe (as if those born in Israel have any roots in Europe!) and the racist rantings of Benny Elon have been discussed before on this forum. These are, of course, the people who make the reaching of any solution difficult. The extremists on each side simply will not abide the other nationality. They simply must be kept apart.

A third reason to support a two-state solution rather than a single bi-national state is that a state dedicated to a single nationality serves as a refuge for members of that nationality who face persecution abroad. Had Israel existed in the 1930s, the Holocuast might not have been prevented, but more Jews would have escaped to Israel rather than died in Hitler's camps. Likewise, had a Palestinian state existed in 1982, few if any refugees would have been living in Sabra and Shatila; they would have been in their national homeland rather than being slaughtered.

[GabysPoppy]

83. Thank you Jack

You said it more eloquently and politely than I ever could.

[Violet_Crumble]

85. I agree...

I don't think there's been anything Jack has said yet about why he favours the two-state solution that I disagree with. One line in particular about the one-state solution jumped out at me, because it's what I think is the difference between me and those folk who think that people who support a one-state solution are trying to destroy Israel...

"It is a perfectly honorable proposal made with the best motives rooted in a love of democratic principle."

If it wasn't for the fact that most Israelis and Palestinians want their own states, and that the shadow of the Holocaust obviously plays a part in the desire for a state with a Jewish majority (the only problem I have with that is if discrimination against other groups creep in), I'd probably support a one-state solution. But as it is, I support a two-state solution and hope that eventually a few decades down the track, the hostility and bitterness would have subsided enough for a single democratic state to emerge where everyone has equal rights and protection regardless of what they are...

Violet...

[Jack Rabbit]

7. Critique

The only "dispute" about the Occupied Territories exists in the minds of the Israeli right wing. It was Begin, a man in dire need of a geography lesson, who declared the West Bank and Gaza an "integral part of Israel." They are no such thing. They are lands seized in the 1967 war that have never been part of the modern state of Israel. Over 90% of the population of these territories are Palestinian Arab. Biblical claims are irrelevant. As such, the territories are every bit as much subject to the land-for-peace provisions of Resolution 242 as was the Sinai.

Israel, as the occupying power, is obligated to refrain from moving parts of its own population into Occupied Territory. Under Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, there is and can be no such thing as a legal Israeli settlement in the West Bank or Gaza. Consequently, dismantling the settlements would be neither giving into Arab racism nor a sign of weakness on Israel's part. It is a willingness to comply with international law and respect the rights of Palestinians in the occupied territories.

That refutes Mr. Trainer's first two reasons for not removing any settlements. Let's look at the third:

In theory, I would agree with MK Benny Elon's plan of population transfer or voluntary emigration to Jordan - the real Palestinian state. Unfortunately he does not have popular Israeli support for this initiative, leaving Israel with a profoundly complex demographic problem. With 3.5 million Arabs living in Judea, Samaria and Gaza under deplorable, PLO-induced filth, poverty and unemployment, they quite naturally seek better lives for themselves and their families.
So where do they go? Jordan? Syria? Egypt? Lebanon? Hardly...
The answer is that they flock to the only democratic and free country in the Middle East, where they live in disputed "territories" west of Jordan, or sneak into Israel proper which is basically open territory where would-be terrorists can easily infiltrate Israeli towns and villages. What is the governments' response? The construction of fence that will span Israel's future borders and create a defensible line to stop the flow of people and arms from entering Israel. Is this the best solution? Of course not, but a necessity nevertheless.

First of all, we should thank Mr. Trainer for rejecting ethnic cleansing (or, if one prefers the Israeli right's euphemism, transfer) as a solution. Gee, that's mighty big of him. And he even agrees with it in principle, too. What a champion of justice!

Israel has every right to build a fence, but has no right to build it just anywhere. Whether it has been declared a border or not, the Green Line has served as such for over half a century. Consequently, such a fence should be on or near the Green Line, not running deep into the West Bank.

Otherwise, Mr. Trainer's case is based on racism. He believes that Palestinians are simply incapable of governing themselves. He argues that a Palestinian government would be so corrupt and incompetent that common Palestinians would leave for Egypt and Jordan. Might it occur to him that if a Palestinian government were that bad, the Palestinian people might possibly do what other people have done in similar situations? That would be rise up and take the government into their own hands.

Indeed, that seems to be what they are doing now. They are governed by Israeli occupation authorities, which displaces Palestinians in order to build settlements where they cannot live and roads on which they cannot travel. Of course, Mr. Trainer thinks that it's just irrational for them to rise against the Israeli authorities who so wisely benefit the Palestinians by bulldozing their homes.

[GabysPoppy]

8. Mr. Rabbit

If as you state "Over 90% of the population of these territories are Palestinian Arab", why then was Barak's offer of 95% of the land called a "terrible" offer?

To answer my own question, it has been Arafat's goal then and now to drive Israel in to the sea. I don't give a rat's ass what his "amended"(?) charter states if he even has amended it.

[tinnypriv]

16. "95%"

Question: Do you literally believe that? It isn't a rhetorical point?

[Djinn]

21. can you say rank hypocrisy

To begin with, the fundamental, underlying motivation for removing Jewish settlements is hopelessly flawed. Why must all Arab territories - disputed or otherwise - be Judenrein (Jew-free) as a pre-condition to any negotiated settlement? Isn't that racism?

ummm HELLO you want a JEWISH nation but that's not prejudiced? you want to keep a JEWISH majority but that's not prejudice? How happy would you be to leave ALL the settlements were they are AND allow right of return for Palestinians?

Why isn't a one state solution with a vote for every adult a viable solution, because then the jewish majority would cease to exist, something that can not be allowed to happen - THAT's prejudice

[Jim Sagle]

23. No, it's survival. Check into it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. Israel is a pluralistic nation

And has one million non-Jews. Yet Arabs and many of their supporters seem to expect all Palestinian territories will be ENTIRELY free of Jews.

That is hypocrisy.

As for the rest, having a Jewish nation is more the result of need than just desire. The Jewish people tried living in the nations of others for 2,000 years and that didn't exactly work well. You know what I mean -- pogrom, murder, ethnic cleansing and Holocaust. All the stuff of a Hamas wet dream.

[Djinn]

25. yep and all of that

is the fault of the Palestinians??? Europe allowed the Nazi to attempt their extermination plan NOT the arab world, the UK & US didn't want a large jewish immigration and tried to fight against it after WW2 NOT the arab world.

seems to me that the palestinians are paying for the racism of europeans.

For me it's simple - you can't just plonk a country down on top of people and proceed to move millions there and NOT have it piss off the people already there. If people who left the area 2000 years ago can have right of return why can't people removed from Haifa 50 years ago return

And for Jim Sagle - so when Palestinians fight and kill it's terrorism but when the Israeli's do it it's survival? Funny but I thought killing civilians was plain wrong whether carried out by Hamas OR the IDF, some might suggest that as the IDF is a professional army rather than a private group that they should be more accountable but I'm happy to say anyone who kills civilians is wrong

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. Seems to me

That you are arguing over history. If you were making this argument in the 1946-1948 era, I would think you could do so and not look silly.

That country has been plonked already. You are arguing over the past, not the present.

The "Right of Return" that so many here complain about is an impractical fantasy. It simply can't happen without destroying Israel. I'm sure you can check your history books, but nations never volunteer to be destroyed. They're funny about that.

And though I am not Jim, civilians die in all military combat. To blame that on the military is silly. The IDF targets terrorists, the terrorists target civilians. There is no comparison.

[Djinn]

29. so why would it destroy Israel

would that be because of the insistance on a Jewish majority? insisting on a majority made up of one ethic/religious/cultural group is prejudicial. what would happen to Israel if everyone converted to Islam (not going to happen I know but humour me) would Israel cease to exist?

BTW muddle - you brought up the past - you said Israel needed state based bigotry (a enforced jewish majority) because of what happened to them in Europe, once again only some people are allowed to hark to the past.

oh and if you REALLY beleive that the IDF never targets civilians I suggest you go and have a look for yourself - until then you're labouring under a gross misapprehension

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. This just in

Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people. Most other places those people have gone, they have been abused, persecuted and killed. Or, in the Arab world, they also got ethnically cleansed along with the rest.

That is the reason for the, "insistance on a Jewish majority." Go figure. Everybody else tries to kill you and you get picky about who runs your government.

If everyone in Israel converted to Islam, Israel would cease to be the homeland for the Jewish people. So, Israel in the form it was established in 1948 (or its previous form) would cease to exist.

Funny, I don't recall ever using the words, "state based bigotry" for Israel. In fact, I know I didn't. Hmmm, could you be manipulating what I said just a tad?

Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, for about the 2,000th time. (2,000 is roughly the number of years the Jewish people went without a homeland and they were abused each and every one.) Anybody who doesn't see the need for such a place needs to do some reading on the history of the last 2,000 years. Some key words to look up: Inquisition, pogrom, ethnic cleansing, Gulag, Masada and Holocaust.

As for the last, it is inevitable in combat that some soldiers go off the deep end. Israel itself has prosecuted soldiers for harming civilians. But it is not IDF policy to target civilians. It IS the policy of the massive number of Palestinian terror groups to do so.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

34. The Americas

are the native lands of many indigenous nations that went through their own holocaust. When are we moving out to make it up to them or should I say us since some of these were my ancestors as well. Both sides need to stop all their bullshit and either learn to live as two nations or one. This stupid you killed 5 so I'll kill 10 shit has to stop. Or else we'll be having this conversation in the 60th anniversary of DU. No one is right or wrong in this but instead of pumping up one side we should make sure there is a more peaceful outcome that the on we've been getting for so many years.

[Muddleoftheroad]

37. Living together

I would love to see peace. How do you manage that when your enemies vow to destroy you? That is the situation Israel has faced since 1948.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

38. I see you didn't address the premise I put forth regarding natives.

I think it is a legitimate example. But that's OK. What about the Palestinians that don't want to destroy Israel. Are those punished collectively along with the more radical ones? Also that doesn't address the failed policy of pumping up one side over the other. Many Palestinians think Israelis are the enemy and that they are trying to destroy them. Whether right or wrong that is the mentality on both sides. So what? now we're back to square one.

[Blitz]

40. The mentality on both sides is not the same

Pretending that it is doesn't make it so and is simply intellectually lazy. Moral equivalency run amuck. The old thought is true. If the Palestinians put down their weapons tomorrow there would be peace. If the Israelis put down their weapons tomorrow, there would be no Israel, no Israelis and no peace for the survivors.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

46. There is a lot of the same mentality on both sides.

Seeing things in black and white, we're good they're evil is the real intellectual laziness. There is a lot of history between these people. Before the state of Israel was created future prime ministers committed what the British and many others considered terrorist acts. Denouncing one sides violence does not mean you should applaud the other side's. David Horowitz and Richard Perle are as vile and despicable to me as many of the people you consider terrorists. Difference is ones are motivated by greed and the others religious fanaticism. Yet I'm sure their positions in this conflict would agree with many of the people here that have no sympathy for any Palestinians. Again as long as people keep pointing fingers and generalizing we're all screwed. We're supposed to be better, at least on this site.

[sushi]

86. "If the Palestinian put down their weapons tomorrow

there will be peace."

What kind of peace? If they put down their weapons they'll expect a state in exchange. Would they get the state they want, and are entitled to, or would it be a state on Israel's terms? And would they get it immediately or sometime in the future? The long-suffering Palestinian innocents can't do anything and the extremists among them are not stupid.

"If the Israelis put down their weapons tomorrow, there would be no Israel."

Now you're exaggerating. Besides, they will never do that.

[Muddleoftheroad]

92. They will never do that

Applies to the Palestinians putting down their weapons of terror as well.

You talk about the Palestinians getting, "the state they want." No, they will not. They will get a compromise that is more than Israel wants and less than they want. That's what compromise is about.

[sushi]

93. That's what I've been saying all this time

They have to compromise. In order to do that, they have to negotiate. Who is stalling??? You support Israel's condition that the extremists have to disarm first before there can be any talks.
The extremists are not going to do that, and I think they have their own condition (I forget what). They should get together without conditions, and discuss all that there.

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. We never left square one

However, Israel has shown that it can make peace with neighbors. The Palestinians are a special case. Israel, in case you missed this, is our ally. We side with them as they have sided with us. The PA/PLO is not just NOT our ally, they have sided with our enemies repeatedly.

And yes, the more moderate Palestinians are indeed stuck with the problems of the radicals BECAUSE the Palestinians refuse to get rid of such groups. Hell, they don't even try. Instead, they support, endorse and fund such groups.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

43. In case you missed the last few decades of history.

Iraq, Chile, Indonesia, Peru, Guatemala, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, El Salvador, (should I go on?) have all been our allies. So what that's not a reason to ignore UN resolutions and support cruel and illegal occupations is it? Please.

[Muddleoftheroad]

45. Israel remains our ally

While those nations have come and gone. Israel was our ally through the Cold War when the Arab nations all sided with the Soviet Union. Israel was our ally in the Gulf War when Iraq attacked it and Israel stood by and let us handle things. Meanwhile, Arafat allied himself with Saddam.

UN resolutions are the result of the MASSIVE Arab and Muslim numbers in that body. Just because many vote for it, doesn't make it right.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

47. So i guess

that allies spy on each other and attack each other's ships. Right? OK.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

49. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

The countries most likely responsible for sept 11th remain our "allies" too. So what who's to say what's going to happen in the future.

[Muddleoftheroad]

56. Remain?

Were they ever?

Sure as hell haven't been forever, especially Saudi Arabia.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

57. According to you.

But you're not the government are you? If they're not why are they referred to as such by Rethugs and Dems? You keep avoiding the issues and relying on one liners. Because someone is a so called ally doesn't mean shit. Our so called allies have caused many atrocities. Indonesia and Turkey anyone? I could go on and on about our righteous "allies".

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. Actually

I am the government. Depending on where you live, you might be as well.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

60. Haaaaahhaaaaaa hhaaaaaaaaa

Come on stop it, you're cracking me up.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

65. Also.

If you are the government then this people I mentioned are are allies according to you the government, right? That is what the government(you) says through Scott McClellan and others. Were you trying to make my point for me or something? This government of "ours" represents no one but themselves and their contributors. Where do you live? I understand that all governments are corrupt, but your statements almost sound like denial.

[Muddleoftheroad]

66. All institutions are partially corrupt

That doesn't mean we don't influence them still.

Israel is a prime example. It's actually in the best interests of oil types to back the Arabs and not the Israelis. But here we are, still allies with Israel. Why? Because the American people would go apeshit if * tried anything different.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

75. First of all

our government is more than "partially corrupt". I guess you've never heard of Enron, CIA, NSA, BCCI, stolen elections, Iran Contra, Iraq gate, Vietnam, Panama invasion, NAFTA (how much were the people consulted about that one), telecommunications act, again I could go on and on. You seem have missed the part where the people in power don't give a shit about what you or I think. Consent can be very easily manipulated and shaped. If you want to believe these things you put forth that's your business. But as I said before the use of one liners and faith in corrupt institutions does not make something true or just for that matter. This is not meant as an insult. What I'm trying to understand is why your arguments which seem vague at best resemble those of republicans that I've argued with before. You seem to agree with a lot of the murdering and hypocritical policies our government enforces with our money and usually without our consent. What's the problem with W he does many of the same things you seem to be OK with. Why is he so different? There are very informed and very capable people that post information in this site that would debunk all or most the statements that you have made recently. I would suggest that you ignore "mainstream" media sources since I think that it's been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are full of shit. I truly don't understand what your beefs or differences with Bush and the rethugs are. Again I'm not insulting I'm just trying to understand.

[_Jumper_]

97. Really?

Do you honestly think that the American people, aside from religious fundies, would vehemently oppose having a pro-Arab tilt? I think, on balance, they would support such a move because it would reduce anti-American sentiment aroung the globe and terrorism against America.

[_Jumper_]

96. Yes

Pakistan has been an ally of American governments ever since its creation in 1947.

[Muddleoftheroad]

55. Allies always spy on each other of course

Yes, they do in fact. All nations serve self interest to some extent.

And yes, feel free to go on about one accident about 35 years ago if it makes you happy.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

62. Accident?

Sure how convenient.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

64. Happy?

None of this makes me happy. Although you seem to be perfectly happy recycling propaganda about how it's OK to call others terrorists and tyrants. While supporting some of the worst atrocities because we can make a buck.

[Muddleoftheroad]

67. Terrorists and tyrants

I only call those that deserve the titles. The Palestinians have a lot of the former and at least one of the latter.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

77. What does that mean?

Our government acts like a terrorist and a tyrant a lot of times. Its prime motivation? money and power. At least I guess we can agree on that. No one on this earth is above criticism and that includes our government and the Israeli government. What is so unbelievable about that? You may call others whatever you want but those terms become meaningless and even hypocritical when our government has provided a lot of the weapons people use to kill each other not to mention that when they see us act the probably say "Hey if they can kill without remorse so can I". Our actions and indifference to others speak much louder than our words. "The biggest purveyor of violence ___________". I;ll let you finish that fringe radical quote.

[Muddleoftheroad]

78. It means

That the Palestinians have an enormous network of terrorists. Further, those same terrorists enjoy the support of the populace and their government which, btw, is led by a tyrant.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

81. So what?

The Bush Crime Family along with its govt. agencies IS a huge network of terrorists and according to polls IT enjoys the support of the majority of the people. Even if their "support" went down to 40%, that's still a sizable portion of the population. What should we do? Sanction ourselves or ask Sharon to throw missiles at us?

[bluesoul]

79. Israelis have

no shortage of both types either...

[Muddleoftheroad]

80. Actually, they have a major shortage of both

You don't see Israelis strapping bombs on themselves and blowing themselves up along with women and children.

Further, you might hate Sharon, but he isn't a tyrant.

[sushi]

88. They don't have to strap bombs

on themselves and blow themselves up. They just drop them from the air and then go safely home.

[Muddleoftheroad]

90. That theory

Seems to imply no Israeli soldiers or civilians get killed. Reality is far different when your enemy sends new mothers strapped with explosives into checkpoints.

[_Jumper_]

98. Pollard

It wasn't just about spying. It was about Israel selling top-secret nuclear data Pollard stole to the USSR.

There are no friends in foreign policy, just interests.

I used to be as pro-Israel as you. Then I learned about them knowing about the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, them duping us into bombing Libya in 1986, them committing a terrorist attack on a American diplomatic building in 1954, and about their spy ring that was linked to the 9/11 hijackers. On balance, I still support them over the pathetic PA, but how can you pretend that Israel is a close ally and support it unswervingly in light of this? It is no more reliable than Pakistan or France.

[tinnypriv]

48. "the Arab nations all sided with the Soviet Union"

1. Saudi Arabia didn't even have diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union.

2. Egypt kicked out the Soviets before the '73 war.

3. In the UN, democracies outnumber Arab states.

4. Israel and Iraq were "our" allies up until the exact second the latter invaded Kuwait.

5. "Arafat sided with Saddam". True, but at least most of that was while Iraq was under murderous bombardment. What's our excuse for "siding" with Saddam?

6. Syria was "our" ally in the Gulf War too, and as a quid pro quo, we let it invade and de-facto occupy Lebanon.

[Muddleoftheroad]

58. Counterpoint

1. One does not need official relations to show support.

2. You make my point for me. Egypt was a client state of the Soviets.

3. In the UN, oil using nations outnumber well, everybody. Add that to the Arab and Muslim blocs and Israel is mostly alone.

4. Iraq was also a historical Soviet client state. It only became our friend after the Iranians became our enemy.

5. The U.S. sided with Saddam because of Iran.

6. Almost every nation on the globe was our ally in the Gulf War. Only a few were attacked by the Iraqis. Only one sat there and took it and let us respond.

[Darranar]

61. Well...

1. One does not need official relations to show support.

Generally, not having diplomatic relations is a sign of a lack of support.

2. You make my point for me. Egypt was a client state of the Soviets.

No disagreement there - though now, of course, it is instead a client state of the US.

3. In the UN, oil using nations outnumber well, everybody. Add that to the Arab and Muslim blocs and Israel is mostly alone.

The US uses plenty of oil, yet they've managed to defy international opinion multiple times when it comes to I/P.

4. Iraq was also a historical Soviet client state. It only became our friend after the Iranians became our enemy.

So that excuses US support for mass-murdering tyrants?

5. The U.S. sided with Saddam because of Iran.

And Arafat sided with Saddam because of Israel. So?

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tinnypriv]

69. "Arab principle"?

I rather think an edit is called for.

[Darranar]

70. Okay...

1. Generally only. The Saudis are masters at playing both sides of every issue.

True. But can you provide some evidence of Saudi/Soviet ties?

2. I would argue that Egypt is still a bronco that bucks on its own and is not broken in any way. Anti-Semitism still spews from the Egyptian press for example.

The US doesn't care about anti-semitism in the Egyptian press. Such incitements to hatred manage to keep the population from realizing that they're being misruled and actually doing something about it.

3. The U.S. also is the most powerful nation on earth. In short, it can do what it wants typically.

Fair enough.

4. Just application of the Arab principle about an enemy's enemy being your friend.

I don't find it to be an Arab principle, seeing as how it has been embraced by short-sighted and amoral people for years, regardless of race, nationality, religion, or hair color.

5. So, let's see. Palestinian terrorists kill Americans. Palestinian leadership sides with our enemies. And you expect us to be evenhanded?

So, let's see. US client states kill Palestinians. The US government sides with the enemies of the Palestinians. And you expect them to be evenhanded?

[Muddleoftheroad]

74. Continuing saga

1. I will look later to show some evidence of Saudi/Soviet ties. Right now, I am basing this on what I recall from the time.

2. I disagree about the U.S. caring about anti-semitism in the Egyptian press. The problem is that the U.S. is afraid it really will be seen as anti-Arab if it really pushes an agenda that doesn't tolerate this crap.

4. Every reference I have ever seen and several secondary references on the web credit this to an Arab proverb. That is how I have always heard it and, frankly, I think it complimentary. Lacking proof to the contrary, I will continue to give credit where it is due.

5. I expect the Palestinians to make better choices -- both for their own leadership and their own future.

[Darranar]

84. Well...

1. I will look later to show some evidence of Saudi/Soviet ties. Right now, I am basing this on what I recall from the time.

Okay.

2. I disagree about the U.S. caring about anti-semitism in the Egyptian press. The problem is that the U.S. is afraid it really will be seen as anti-Arab if it really pushes an agenda that doesn't tolerate this crap.

It already is seen as anti-Arab. In addition, the US government has shown a massive indifference to the consequences of their actions in the Middle East in regard to anti-Americanism.

5. I expect the Palestinians to make better choices -- both for their own leadership and their own future.

And I hope the US makes better choices, as well.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[_Jumper_]

100. Egpyt

Egypt is not a client state, IMO. If it were we would be able to stop the anti-American propaganda emanating from its media.
We need to get Shrub out and elect a president that will stop Egpyt from promotoing jihad.

[Darranar]

103. Egypt is most certainly a US client state...

The anti-American propaganda is mostly coming from Islamist circles, which are anti-Mubarak.

Mubarak cannot destroy the Islamists or completely halt their propaganda, though he'd love to do so (and in the process get rid of what freedom of expression remains there).

[tinnypriv]

63. Fair enough

1. How did Saudi Arabia "show support" then? Through Osmosis?

2. Was, is operative.

3. If you're going to change definitions mid-argument, fair enough.

4. So, on logic, the "Iranians" were our friend while were were supporting "unbelievable" terror and atrocities by the Shah?

5. As I said (accurately), U.S. support for Saddam continued up until the moment of the Kuwaiti invasion. Long after the war with Iran was over.

6. So, any comment on allowing Syria to takeover Lebanon? Good thing if it gets them onside against a dictator we supported?

[_Jumper_]

99. Saudi's backed the USSR?

Do you have evidence showing that the Saudis backed the USSR? What were they doing supporting Raygun's crusade against communism in Central America?

[sushi]

87. Israel remains a faithful ally

because it depends on the US. I understand Israel's PM is now asking for more money (two billion dollars?) for settlement business and that fence.

[GabysPoppy]

89. Loan guarantees

Lets get it correctly

[_Jumper_]

94. "MASSIVE" Arab and Muslim numbers

5% and 20% respectively are "MASSIVE"? What would your ideal number of Arabs and Muslims be?

So you are saying that a fraction of the world population which is also a group with little power is forcing everyone else, including every great-power to vote with it? If that were true, why can't the allegedly powerful Arabs and Muslims sway the USA? If their power is so great that it can sway the entire world why is one nation immune from their influence?

I think that, on balance, we should support Israel but we can't ignore international law and the international community because it is inconvenient for Israel. Sure, there should be exceptions, such as the construction of the wall, but blank-check defiance of the world for a small, distant country is inimical to our interests.

[sushi]

102. "Just because many vote for it,

doesn't make it right."

Well, Muddle, that is democracy, which Bush is trying to force down the throats of other countries. The voters in Iraq might just choose a government that will get close to Iran and Saudi Arabia!

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tinnypriv]

39. Out of curiosity

Which "predominantly" Muslim areas?

[Blitz]

42. Bethlehem, portions of the West Bank,

A Red Sea beach where I, my cousin, her twins and her friend were most definitely the only Jews (that was the only time I felt any animosity ... from an old woman who looked at me as if she wanted to kill me ... a very disconcerting experience). Several other places but the names don't spring immediately to mind since this was several years ago. The next time I talk to my cousin, I'll be sure to ask her if she remembers the specifics.

[tinnypriv]

44. No need (nt)

[Jim Sagle]

54. You may be happy but it's still a simplistic argument.

What makes the moral difference is why and how the civilians are killed. Palestinian terrorists set out to kill Israeli civilians, then run across the border to hide among their own civilians. Israeli armed forces pursue and kill the terrorists along with civilians who are in the way.

To deny Israel's right to retaliate is to deny their right to self-defense. They have no options - the Palestinian forces have many.

[Djinn]

72. options

They (israeli's) have no options - the Palestinian forces have many

LOL! the israeli's have a government and an army, a middle class tax base and 3 billion a year in US dollars

[sushi]

27. "95 %" sounds good, but

I remember reading (I wish I had a link) that it was 95% of less than 100%. That makes it smaller than "95%."

[sushi]

26. Last year I heard an Israeli

historian (commentator?) saying in an interview that those who keep talking about their "biblical right" belong in a mental institution. Trouble is, he said, there are so many of them.

When I find the link I'll post it.

[tinnypriv]

71. The real interesting thing

Is that Judea and Samaria used to be the term of the ultra-right in Israel, and now it is just plain center.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[BrokenSegue]

73. All I'd like to say...

Isn't it a bit late to still have the lieberman picture up.

[bluesoul]

76. Talking

about extremist views and articles, this is one from the pro-israeli side...

[tinnypriv]

91. I'd be cautious about calling this "extremist"

Much of what this commentator says would be readily accepted by centerist elements in Israel, even those from the Labor alignment.

Probably all of it would be accepted at some level by U.S. "pro-Israel" supporters, though I doubt there is anything they wouldn't support.