Israel: Democracy in action.

[zenith-nadir]

ZN doesn't post lies, what he does do is take an isolated fact and use that to imply an unsustainable conclusion. Eg, Arafat is an idiot, hence, all Palestinians are animals who get what they deserve.

Nice try, but an blatant mischaracterization of my position. I have repeatedly said that Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have done more damage to the palestinians than Israel ever has. Legitimizing a greedy ruthless terrorist leader who is responsible for two decades of international terrorism and two seperate civil wars pales in comparison to repatriating jews onto 7000 sq miles of land. I have also said repeatedly that I lothe the fact that Arafat is the sole representative/dictator who controls the fate of four million palestinians. That is why there is no peace, to blame it on Sharon who wasn't even around 5 years ago is beyond naïve. Only an complete blithering idiot would rationalize that "Arafat is an idiot, hence, all Palestinians are animals". Ergo, the rest of your post is not even worthy of comment.

Let's visit your next equally bewildering post;

Actually, you do lie. I never said that. Israel is not the major reason for the Iraq invasion, but it is one of four that Wilkie lists. Israel could not have made the US invade Iraq, but when the US was considering the invasion, the advantage Israel would gain from it was considered a bonus.

Since Saddam was rewarding suicide bomber familes with $25,000 U.S. funds I'd say you've just hoisted yourself on your own petar.

The Palestinians were driven from Israel, they didn't just flee. Let's call a spade a spade. Israel could not be a democratic Jewish State without a Jewish majority, which required the expulsion of the majority population.

The war in 1948 began when the Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon invaded Israel, Israel did not invade Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. The Arabs chose war and lost, I make no apologies for thier mistake as I cannot do anything about it. Those Palestinians that chose to remain in Israel live there to this day.

And you know what happens to those modern Israeli Arabs CapelDodger? They are murdered just as indiscriminantly as jews are or their restaurants are blown up just as indiscriminantly by the islamofascist suicide bombers. That is why you and a_u_p and others amaze me with your broken moral compasses, IDF operations to stop these terrorists = suicide bombers targetting innocent civilians be they jew, arab, pink, purple or martian. Now you will counter with "well the IDF kills civilians too", yes they do, but not willingly, it is not a goal of Israel, it is not a religious duty to kill palestinians in a jihad, it is a unavoidable and terrible fact of life BECAUSE Arafat refuses to stop the islamofascist terror groups who operate out of palestinian civilian areas and who USE palestinian civilians for cover and concealment. That makes civilians the unintentional victims of combat.

Then there are those like me, who can´t really see one side as all good and the other as all evil, but who are caught up in the conflict nonetheless.

Hey I would be thrilled to discuss the issue with someone who accepts that twenty nations have been trying to destroy one nation for the past 50 years. That reality has an effect on the behaviour of that one nation. Israel isn't perfect, no nation is perfect, no person is perfect, should the Arabs chose lasting and final peace tomorrow Israel would be the first in line.

 

[a_unique_person]

You know that your question is not that simple.

I'd say that it's pretty simple: if you think it was justified to wage a war of annihilation on israel the moment it was created, you think its existence is illegitimate.


If I said that killing you the moment you were born was a "justified reaction" to your birth, that would mean you have no right to live, would it not?

You refuse point blank to justify your assertions that I slander jews behind their backs, while being polite to their face, or that I trawl hate sites looking for anti-semitic material. Day 3.

Meanwhile, I have said many times that the creation of Israel was a mistake.

Perhaps I can make you understand my postion with an anectdote. My grandmother was a good catholic, who married a non catholic. (Well, maybe not that good, marrying outside the church). Nevertheless, she obeyed all it's proscriptions on birth control, that is, she wouldn't use any. This despite my grandfather saying that if she had any more children, he would leave, as he couldn't afford a decent life and support new children being born every two years or so. When she had her fifth child, he left, just as he said he would.

As an ex-catholic, my point of view is that of course she should have used birth control. The proscription against it is that sheer self interest that is only aimed at boosting birth rates of catholics. The more catholics there are, the bigger and more powerful the church. As an only mother, who was not allowed to divorce, she was poor and poverty striken for many years. Her children were often cold and hungry, and had no luxuries at all.

The only thing about all this, of course, is that her last child was my father. Life creates these strange conjunctions, and you end up being a part of something you don't logically agree with.

Israel should not have been created, but it was. People live in Israel, and don't deserve to die because they do.

You're trying to make some totally academic "distinction" between saying israel should have been destroyed at birth and saying it has no right to exist, but it is totally unconvincing--especially since you CONSTANTLY REFUSE TO SAY IT HAS A RIGHT TO EXIST NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU ARE ASKED.

You only started asking that question, after I had earlier answered it many times before, because I had asked you to come up with proof that I am a rabid anti-semite.

If had said, "israel should have been destroyed at birth, but it has a right to exist as a jewish state today", then MAYBE the distinction would have meant something.

But you won't do that--you just can't bring yourself to say israel has a right to exist. I'd say that proves rather clearly you think it has no right to exist, your feeble denials notwithstanding.

I already told you why I wasn't answering. You are just creating a diversion from what I was asking you, proof of your slanders.

I mean, I just asked:

If I misunderstood you, please, correct that impression: tell us, does israel have a right to exist as a jewish state?

And your reply was:

Israel exists now,

NONONONONONONO.

I'm not asking you if israel exists. HItler believed jews exist, too; he just didn't think they have a right to exist. I'm asking you if israel has a right to exist. And your reply to that is:

You are confusing Israel and Jews. They are two distinct entities.

just as numerous other colonial relics do around the world. Over time, these countries are mostly reverting back to their original roots. The mexicans are taking back california, for example. Too much of the Australian native population died for it to revert. The country has so much desert that the native population was never that large anyway.

The ebb and tide of history. Israel exists now, it will follow the natural flow of humanity as it applies in it's locale.

So, your answer to the question "does israel have a right to exist?" is "well, it exists, but that's OK, it will eventually be destroyed by 'the natural flow of humanity'".

Compare this to:

--"do the jews have the right to exist?"
--"well, they do exist, but that's OK, pretty soon they'll die out if the concentration camp plan works as intended."

Or:

--"do black people have the right to exist?"
--"well, they do exist, but that's OK, a few more Dafur-like massacres and they'll die out".

Or, to put it simply: no, israel has no right to exist as a jewish state (or at all, for that matter).

So what's all your bitching about me "misrepresenting" you and saying you don't deny israel's right to exist? You sure are doing just that, aren't you?

But, to repeat, you are just proving my original point: "ask him if israel has a right to exist, and watch him wriggle around trying to say 'no' without looking like a jew-hater".

And guess what? THAT'S EXACLTY WHAT YOU ARE DOING. Your answer is that israel has no right to exist, you rejoice at its coming destruction, but try to hide all that behind mushy talk about "the ebb and flow of history" and similar BS--lest people think you actually are enjoying the thought of israel being destroyed, God forbid.

You're very, VERY predictable, AUP.

Prove I enjoy it. That is a 'blood libel' if I ever I have heard one. California is going Mex, and not a shot if being fired.

 

[a_unique_person]

Nice try, but an blatant mischaracterization of my position. I have repeatedly said that Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have done more damage to the palestinians than Israel ever has. Legitimizing a greedy ruthless terrorist leader who is responsible for two decades of international terrorism and two seperate civil wars pales in comparison to repatriating jews onto 7000 sq miles of land. I have also said repeatedly that I lothe the fact that Arafat is the sole representative/dictator who controls the fate of four million palestinians. That is why there is no peace, to blame it on Sharon who wasn't even around 5 years ago is beyond naïve. Only an complete blithering idiot would rationalize that "Arafat is an idiot, hence, all Palestinians are animals". Ergo, the rest of your post is not even worthy of comment.

No, perhaps you would like to check out with Skeptic what the right line is. Is it "Live Beside the Palestinians" or "Israel as a Jewish state". How was it ever going to exist as such without a Jewish majority?

a) Ethnic cleansing.
b) Stateless inhabitants.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
I agree that zionism was as unrealistic as the future-boosters of the 60's and 70's, but as a response to my post this is remarkably (even for you) specious. Israel has never accepted - and will never accept - any limitations to its boundaries. What it can get, it will take if and when it wants it. Everybody in the neighbourhood knows that. How can there be peace without defined borders?

Such elaborate fantasies to hang on such a slender thread. Have you ever read Robert Burns?

It's rare when projects set in motion closely resemble their initial concepts in all but the most broadest terms. Humans are simply not capable of anticipating every contingency. We adapt, we change, and sometimes the final result is better than we had planned, sometimes not, and sometimes it's just different. This is a simple idea anyone can understand, if you're not talking about Jews. When you are talking about Jews, suddenly it seems natural to drag out 85 year old maps drawn by dead people and say, ”Voila! This is their plan!”

 

[a_unique_person]

Such elaborate fantasies to hang on such a slender thread. Have you ever read Robert Burns?

It's rare when projects set in motion closely resemble their initial concepts in all but the most broadest terms. Humans are simply not capable of anticipating every contingency. We adapt, we change, and sometimes the final result is better than we had planned, sometimes not, and sometimes it's just different. This is a simple idea anyone can understand, if you're not talking about Jews. When you are talking about Jews, suddenly it seems natural to drag out 85 year old maps drawn by dead people and say, ”Voila! This is their plan!”

What sort of an answer is that?

 

[zenith-nadir]

No, perhaps you would like to check out with Skeptic what the right line is. Is it "Live Beside the Palestinians" or "Israel as a Jewish state". How was it ever going to exist as such without a Jewish majority?

a) Ethnic cleansing.
b) Stateless inhabitants.

More classic a_u_p.

There is no right line, as there is no jewish conspiracy, therefore I do not have to check with Skeptic. Israel IS a jewish state which already exsists with a jewish majority. There are some jews who want to live in the West Bank beside palestinians. Only in your, and the islamofascists', book is that considered a crime. Since 19% of Israelis are not jews the "ethnic cleansing" B.S. is just that, B.S. Since there are Arab members of the Knesset the "ethnic cleansing" B.S. is just that, B.S.

The only reason the Palestinians are stateless today is because they have been used as pawns by the Arab world for the past 50 years and because their only leader and representative to the entire world for the past three decades is one of the most incompetent statesman ever to walk the face of this earth. In fact he should not even be called a statesman, he is a well-known terrorist responsible for years and years of international terrorism, thousands of deaths and two seperate civil wars which did not even involve Israel.

a_u_p no matter how many times you say something doesn't make it true. I dunno where you learned all this bogus ◊◊◊◊ you repeatedly assert but one day I hope you go to Israel and see jewish Israelis living and working beside Arab Israelis who are living and working beside Christian Israelis who are living and working beside Agnostic Israelis....all in a jewish majority state which would run happily and peacefully EXCEPT FOR THE REALITY that Israel is terrorized by islamofascist groups who operate out of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank with the Arab world's financing and Arafat's/The Palestinian Authority's blessing. You will see that after 50 years of being attacked and terrorized Israelis, in all their forms, cope amazingly well with that kind of daily stress. Should the Palestinians chose a new leader who has a different approach to diplomacy than the one that has been used since the 1960's, (eg: terrorism), then they will find a willing peace partner.

 

[a_unique_person]

More classic a_u_p.

There is no right line, as there is no jewish conspiracy, therefore I do not .... to diplomacy than the one that has been used since the 1960's, (eg: terrorism), then they will find a willing peace partner.

Must have touched a raw nerve. Sorry.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Must have touched a raw nerve. Sorry.

Wow, what a blistering rebuttal. What's the matter ran out of rhetoric?

 

[a_unique_person]

More classic a_u_p.

There is no right line, as there is no jewish conspiracy, therefore I do not have to check with Skeptic. Israel IS a jewish state which already exsists with a jewish majority. There are some jews who want to live in the West Bank beside palestinians. Only in your, and the islamofascists', book is that considered a crime. Since 19% of Israelis are not jews the "ethnic cleansing" B.S. is just that, B.S. Since there are Arab members of the Knesset the "ethnic cleansing" B.S. is just that, B.S.

Let's just pause there a moment, and hold that thought.

19% of Isrealis are not Jews, which is OK, as Israel is a Jewish state. What were the percentages when Israel was declared to be a Jewish state?

 

[Skeptic]

What sort of an answer is that?

One you cannot refute.

Tell me, AUP: in 1919, Wilson was president of the USA. His plans included, on the one hand, his "14 points" for Europe, and on the other, to make sure to maintain racial superiority of whites at home, being as he were an ex-KKK member.

In Britian, Lloyd George (I think) was PM. His plans included making damn sure India remains the crown jewel of the British Empire, forever under British hegamony.

In Russia, the glorious revolution concluded, the Bolshevicks were planning to create heaven on earth for the Proletariat.

So, this means today the USA's REAL PLAN is to reestablish segregation, Britian's REAL PLAN is to declare war on India, and Russia's REAL PLAN is to establish communism.

Right?

Of course not. But when it comes to the jews... well, we all know THEIR evil world-domination plans never change, don't we?

 

[a_unique_person]

One you cannot refute.

Tell me, AUP: in 1919, Wilson was president of the USA. His plans included, on the one hand, his "14 points" for Europe, and on the other, to make sure to maintain racial superiority of whites at home, being as he were an ex-KKK member.

In Britian, Lloyd George (I think) was PM. His plans included making damn sure India remains the crown jewel of the British Empire, forever under British hegamony.

In Russia, the glorious revolution concluded, the Bolshevicks were planning to create heaven on earth for the Proletariat.

So, this means today the USA's REAL PLAN is to reestablish segregation, Britian's REAL PLAN is to declare war on India, and Russia's REAL PLAN is to establish communism.

Right?

Of course not. But when it comes to the jews... well, we all know THEIR evil world-domination plans never change, don't we?

There is nothing to refute. It is all platitudes. Mycroft is entitled to hold it as an opinion, but that is all it is.

As usual, you are creating a strawman, which you proceed to smash in spectacular fashion.

The thing is, a large and influential faction in Israel wants nothing less than the 'biblical' borders for Israel. Sharons attempts to make a strategic withdrwal from Gaza have been deferred due to their actions for a year. Given that he is the 'bulldozer', their actions are pretty impressive.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
There is nothing to refute. It is all platitudes. Mycroft is entitled to hold it as an opinion, but that is all it is.

The “opinion” I expressed is nothing more than noting that humans changing plans over time is a universal constant. If you want to argue against that, please do. That woule be entertaining.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
As usual, you are creating a strawman, which you proceed to smash in spectacular fashion.

It's not a straw-man, it's an analogy. The map CD referrs to as presented at the Paris Peace Conference is like these other plans in that they were concieved and adanced long ago under very different circumstances than the world we live in today. If we follow the same logic as CD uses and apply it to these other plans, we would indeed conclude that Britton still has imperial designs on India, that the United States will never accept desegrigation, and that Russia will never accept anything less than creating its workers paradise. By using these other plans as an analogy, Skeptic is able to illustrate the absurdity of CD's assertion in a way that's more thoughtful and illustrative than simply calling him an idiot.

One important difference; these other plans were taken a lot more seriously.

 

[a_unique_person]

The “opinion” I expressed is nothing more than noting that humans changing plans over time is a universal constant. If you want to argue against that, please do. That woule be entertaining.

I think that is why we have the notion of 'sovereignty' now, wherein a nation has set borders. People may change plans over time, these plans no longer include conquests of other nations, etc. A nation has a set of boundaries. Even China, as much as people disagree with them, has a set of known and notional borders. Ditto India/Pakistan. Israel doesnt' even have notional borders.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Skeptic
So, does israel have a right to exist as a jewish state or not?

Is that how you and your mates do it then? Make stuff up and refuse to support it.

Isn't there a trades description issue with the name you use?

I wonder when are you going to start standing up for your claims instead of running away all the time?

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
It's not a straw-man, it's an analogy.

It's a straw man.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by zenith-nadir...but as we all know for 3000 years it was called J-u-d-e-a and Samaria and that is why some jews risk their lives to live there.

So is that why some thieves steal others land?

Where is this bizarre concept enshrined in international law that Sharonl so despises?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
It's a straw man.

Analogy.

Straw man.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Analogy.
Straw man.

Don't you realize Mycroft that some people use the "strawman argument" as strawman arguments?

 

[Mycroft]

Don't you realize Mycroft that some people use the "strawman argument" as strawman arguments?

I do now.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Esther

I copy from the "Memoirs" of David Ben-Gurion.
"In this world we can only have two out of three objectives. We are being offered a chance for a Jewish state and a democratic state, but only part of the land of Israel. We could hold out for all the land of Israel, but if we did that we night lose everything. If we have to compromise our objectives, let it be on obtaining all the land of Israel. We will settle now for half a loaf and dream about the rest later"

Which rather makes my point that Israel's neighbours in "the rest" of Palestine can expect an Israeli attack at some point to achieve the zionist "dream". This quote, I believe, comes from the time of the Peel Commission, and clearly shows that the full land of Israel (as understood at that time, and presumably since) remained the objective. With the 1967 war it was substantially achieved, although the refusal of Lebanon to get involved left that for later - Sharon and Begin's invasion in 1982. The frequent references to Hizbollah by Israeli and Likud officials when discussing purely Palestinian affairs shows that a re-invasion is very much on the cards. Just not quite yet.
:

Israel has proved that is interested in peace and it's ready to trade peace for land. The treaty that Israel has signed with Egypt demonstrates that clearly.

The treaty with Egypt returned the Sinai, which is traditionally a place that Jews come out of, not return to. As such, it's not relevant. And anyway, Sinai (like Gaza) might turn out to be part of the "dream" in the future.

It's too early for us to stop discussing what Israel we want when we cannot accomplish a ceasefire.

The "we're at war" argument is a smokescreen, since the natural state of Israel is war. There was never any prospect of it being anything else. Do you think the Israeli military will ever allow peace? I'm very doubtful myself. The prospect of peace would certainly be a good test of Israel's democracy.

The matter of Israel's borders is discussed, and should be more extensively. But officially, no limits to Israel's borders have been accepted or proposed by an Israeli government. Even the Osla Accords left the matter to later discussion, which (under Netenyahu, who rejected Oslo) went nowhere. Some proposal will have to made if there's to be peace. Don't hold your breath ...