Israel: Democracy in action.

[zenith-nadir]

I am trying to understand the dispute between Skeptic and a unique person without any success for the moment.A_U_P, do you deny Israel's right to exist? If yes, why, do you belong to the Heredim?

The dispute is this. There is a poster here who has a quote by a_u_p as his signature, it reads; "There is plenty of evidence that a clique of Jewish extremists do have a enourmous influence over the US, the "neo-conservatives" have some prominent Zionists.", there is another poster here who has another a_u_p quote in his signature, it reads; "Israel, even if it gives the Palestinians everything they want, will still be subject to attacks. Get used to it." a_u_p has been asked several times in this thread, including by you, if Israel has a right to exsist, notice how he has never directly answered that question. I asked a_u_p four times in this thread what was the West Bank called before it was renamed by Jordan in 1949, he would not answer that either, 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. a_u_p is always quick to condemn Israel, Sharon and the settlers but rarely condenms Arafat, the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, AL Aksa or palestinian/PLO terrorism to an equal extent, as a matter of fact he blames palestinian terrorism on Sharon and "zionist settlers", not on terrorists. a_u_p has used electronicintifada and other highly biased and bogus websites to validate his positions and has been called to task on it many times, yet he continues to use such websites as "evidence".

Those are just a few examples of how a_u_p repeatedly gives the impression that he does not like jews and denies the exsistance of Israel. His actions speak for themselves. Ergo, Skeptic and a_u_p are "going at it".



Meanwhile....

Arafat Aide Says UN Envoy Unwelcome After Remarks - Reuters - Wed Jul 14, 2004

RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) - The top U.N. envoy to the Middle East will no longer be welcome in the Palestinian territories after he harshly criticized Yasser Arafat, a senior adviser to the Palestinian president said Wednesday. "Terje Roed-Larsen's statement is not objective. As of today he is an unwelcome person in Palestinian territories," Nabil Abu Rdainah told Reuters, referring to remarks by the envoy at the United Nations Tuesday.

Let the Palestinian Authority back-pedalling begin!

Palestinian denies U.N. envoy ban - UPI

UNITED NATIONS, July 14 (UPI) -- The Palestinian representative at the United Nations Wednesday said the U.N. envoy to the territory was not really barred in the legal sense.

Nasser al-Kidwa, the permanent Palestinian observer, said any such ban on the envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen, reported out of the Palestinian Authority earlier in the day were made in anger, spoken in Arabic and translated into English.

 

[a_unique_person]

The dispute is this. There is a poster here who has a quote by a_u_p as his signature, it reads; "There is plenty of evidence that a clique of Jewish extremists do have a enourmous influence over the US, the "neo-conservatives" have some prominent Zionists.",

And as Andrew Wilkie has said in his book 'axis of deceit', Israel is a powerful motivator for US actions, including starting an obscenely expensive and stupid war. Notice I referred to clique. There are plenty of Jewish people on this forum who are nothing like the extremists who support these actions. I don't think that anyone is perfect, but if everyone was as reasonable as them, and not die hard dogmatists like you, I think the war between Israel and Palestine would have been over a long time ago.

I am to be ashamed for stating the obvious? There are Islamic fanatics out there who weild undue influence, and kill innocent people too. As I stated in another thread, the real war is against fundamentalism.

there is another poster here who has another a_u_p quote in his signature, it reads; "Israel, even if it gives the Palestinians everything they want, will still be subject to attacks. Get used to it."

I was referring to the experience of Northern Ireland, in which violence is still continuing. It was cold hearted, but I think that the simplistic idea that the likes of Sharon can solve a war using sheer bullying tactics, or that even a reasonable settlement by the pacifists, will not result in a sudden outbreak of peace and love. The hardline tactics have created a hatred that will take just as long to die out as it took to create.

a_u_p has been asked several times in this thread, including by you, if Israel has a right to exsist, notice how he has never directly answered that question.

I have answered that question several times before, and the only reason Skeptic asked it again was because he has accused me of various actions that I would agree are unethical, only I have never done them, with no basis in evidence at all. When I challenge him on those accusations, he then thinks he had better start getting some evidence, by asking me that question. I am not answering, and you know why I am not answering, and you are that much of a pig headed idiot to pretend that you don't know.

I asked a_u_p four times in this thread what was the West Bank called before it was renamed by Jordan in 1949, he would not answer that either, 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.

And I have explained why I am ignoring a 'random fact attack'. WTF does that question have to do with the topic? Start a new thread, and I will debate the issue there.

a_u_p is always quick to condemn Israel, Sharon and the settlers but rarely condenms Arafat, the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, AL Aksa or palestinian/PLO terrorism to an equal extent, as a matter of fact he blames palestinian terrorism on Sharon and "zionist settlers", not on terrorists. a_u_p has used electronicintifada and other highly biased and bogus websites to validate his positions and has been called to task on it many times, yet he continues to use such websites as "evidence".

OK. Show me the evidence. You are as much of a nutter as Skeptic.

Those are just a few examples of how a_u_p repeatedly gives the impression that he does not like jews and denies the exsistance of Israel. His actions speak for themselves. Ergo, Skeptic and a_u_p are "going at it".

A few examples of what? Your inability to reason at any level?

Meanwhile....


Let the Palestinian Authority back-pedalling begin!

Palestinian denies U.N. envoy ban - UPI

Throw in some links to arguments that have appeared like magic out of your arse.

 

[Skeptic]

I have put the challenge to you, now you are want to weasel out of it with some post-hoc research.

(Shrug)

Well, we can start with this thead , where you claimed the Arab war of annihilation on israel in 1948 was a "reasonable reaction" to its creation.

I'd say that if a war of annihilation on a country is justified, then that country has no right to exist, right?

Also among the gems of yours in this thread was the claim that when the Arabs said they'll throw the jews into the sea they didn't REALLY mean it, and that in any case it wasn't REALLY antisemitism because it only called for the annihilation of the jews in a "limited geographical area".

Or your evasive non-answer to my direct question to the effect that, if the attack was justified, what should the justified fate of my granparents, the "zionist invaders": was expulsion good enough, or would they have to pay the ultimate penalty?

So, for some reason, that thread--and many others like it--gave me the impression that you don't think israel has a right to exist, perhaps because you openly supported and justified the attempts to destroy it.

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

 

[Chaos]

I have no problem in civil debate, but I give back what I get.

You are just a bit too resistant to rationality and facts.

Not that I would consider what Skeptic and Z-N (how could I forget him last time?) have to say on "the issue" rationality and facts...

 

[zenith-nadir]

And as Andrew Wilkie has said in his book 'axis of deceit', Israel is a powerful motivator for US actions, including starting an obscenely expensive and stupid war.

Israel made the USA invade Iraq. Classic a_u_p.

It was cold hearted, but I think that the simplistic idea that the likes of Sharon can solve a war using sheer bullying tactics,

Sharon uses bullying tactics. Sharon is responsible. Notice how 30+ years of palestinian terrorism before Sharon was elected is not regarded as bullying tactics.

I have answered that question several times before, and the only reason Skeptic asked it again was because he has accused me of various actions that I would agree are unethical, only I have never done them, with no basis in evidence at all.

I refuse to answer the question because I already answered it "several times before".

I am not answering, and you know why I am not answering, and you are that much of a pig headed idiot to pretend that you don't know.

Stick and stones may break my bones...

And I have explained why I am ignoring a 'random fact attack'. WTF does that question have to do with the topic? Start a new thread, and I will debate the issue there.

Yes, what does the fact that some jews desire to settle in a place called Judea and Samaria and live beside Palestinians have to do with the problem in the middle east...er...ahhh...wait a sec...

OK. Show me the evidence. You are as much of a nutter as Skeptic. A few examples of what? Your inability to reason at any level? Throw in some links to arguments that have appeared like magic out of your arse.

Insults are the tools of the loser.

 

[a_unique_person]

(Shrug)

Well, we can start with this thead , where you claimed the Arab war of annihilation on israel in 1948 was a "reasonable reaction" to its creation.

I'd say that if a war of annihilation on a country is justified, then that country has no right to exist, right?

You know that your question is not that simple. And you already know my answer. Should be writing book covers, take two words out of context, and create a context to suit yourself. Maybe that is your job.

[remote viewing]

Yes, i can see a vision, you are a person who writes book covers for little pot boilers. You are holding a red square, no a green circle, no, a red circle, yes, a red circle.

[/remote viewing]

Also among the gems of yours in this thread was the claim that when the Arabs said they'll throw the jews into the sea they didn't REALLY mean it, and that in any case it wasn't REALLY antisemitism because it only called for the annihilation of the jews in a "limited geographical area".

I have news for you Skeptic, the Palestinians are pretty pissed off with Israel. It's like bottling up a hornets nest, they just get madder and madder. As for the West Bank and Gaza, you already know the reaction to Sharons proposal for a strategic retreat from Gaza. If I was him, I'd be wearing a bullet proof vest.

Do you have *any* ability to empathise with the Palestinians. They had a place they lived in, and now they don't. They don't even have a country. Prior to the creation of Israel, they were not known for being anti-semitic, and were markedly less so than other areas of the world. *cough* Europe *cough*. Suddenly, they are raging anti-semites. What happened? Did someone spike their drinks. Did aliens implant thoughts in their brains. Or maybe some other event happened that just really pissed them off. I will leave it as an exercise for you to work out what that event was, and why it might have pissed them off.

Even so, they are not collectively anti-semites. I read an article in a paper about a Palestinian woman who held the hand of a dying IDF sniper. Amongst the death and killing, there is humanity trying to break out.

Or your evasive non-answer to my direct question to the effect that, if the attack was justified, what should the justified fate of my granparents, the "zionist invaders": was expulsion good enough, or would they have to pay the ultimate penalty?

You think I have easy and direct answers? I don't. Fifty years later, and there are still no easy answers from anyone. Sorry if I don't have that flash of brilliance that gives me alone, in the whole world, the ability to solve this riddle for you.

I don't think that Israel should have been created. I don't think that colonialism in general is a good thing, creating a country by force, and killing off or removing the original inhabitants. I don't think your grandparents should have gone there. Was there a reason they couldn't stay where they were?

Israel exists now, 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, for some reason, that thread--and many others like it--gave me the impression that you don't think israel has a right to exist, perhaps because you openly supported and justified the attempts to destroy it.

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

I was wondering when you were going point out all the times I say nice things to Jews to their face, and stab them in the back when they aren't there.

Or the times I 'let the mask slip'.

 

[Baker]

They had a place they lived in, and now they don't. They don't even have a country.

So what is Jordan?

Prior to the creation of Israel, they were not known for being anti-semitic, and were markedly less so than other areas of the world. *cough* Europe *cough*. Suddenly, they are raging anti-semites.

You need to review your history of the middle east the myth of no anti-Semitic before the creation of Israel has been debunked by many authors and Jews that lived there.
I suggest reading the book Joan peters From Time Immemorial for any one wishing to investigate it.

I was wondering when you were going point out all the times I say nice things to Jews to their face, and stab them in the back when they aren't there.

Or the times I 'let the mask slip'.

Or the time you claimed the holocaust was exaggerated and overemphasized.

 

[demon]

Joan Peters...you are taking the piss...at least I hope you are.

 

[Esther]

Esther, I respect both your opinion and the civility with which you are expressing it, but "Skeptic" is not the right person to ally with for a civil debate. Nor is AUP the right person to confront in civil debate, I have to admit. Most reasonable people here have given up on argueing with them (on this matter) long ago.
For a civil debate on the Israeli/Palestinian matter, I suggest you look for an exchange between Cleopatra and CapelDodger.

I don't think that anybody here needs my alliance. Skeptic can cope pretty good by himself and from what I have read in a couple of threads zenith-nadir doesn't post lies. Nobody caugh him lying. It seems that most of you refer to old stories, when I will catch up, I will make up my mind on who is to blame although this conflict resembles a lot to the
M.E. conflict.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Skeptic:

You can afford to offer compensation; having killed off 99% of the Aboriginies, it's cheap to offer compensation to the remaining 1%, under the "the more we killed, the less we pay" principle.

So it's all about cost? What would an anti-semite make of that ...

 

[CapelDodger]

from Esther:

It's not a secret that the zionist leaders were asking for the great biblical Israel but they didn't get it. Israel is a very young country and it's involved in a terrible war with a part that refuses to declare officially that its goal is not the destruction of Israel. It's too early for us to stop discussing what Israel we want when we cannot accomplish a ceasefire.

What Israel has got wasn't given, it was taken. Asking didn't get it for them. "The Arabs" did indeed reject the partition plan of the Peel Commission, but the mistakes of the Arabs (constant, stupid, infantile mistakes) are not really the issue. Israel is said to be hoping for peace with its neighbours, but how can that be achieved when Israel's future territorial requirements - not demands, but facts created on the ground - are left undefined? The only definition available is the map put forward in 1919 at the Versailles Peace Conference - the conference that created the Polish Corridor and the Sudetan problem, amongst other monstrosities.

I would contend that it is impossible for an Israeli government to put forward a map that it could survive. If it included the West Bank and Lebanon up to and including the Litani valley, even the US would balk, and the Israeli public certainly would. There would also be the demographic problem - a large proportion of expellees would suddenly be back inside Israel, which had to expel them in order to be a democracy and a Jewish State. On the other hand, if these were not included the executive would lose power. Mycroft wonders at a conspiracy of a nation of 5 million, but as I've pointed out the form of Israeli democracy gives commanding power to the executive. And the executive is the plaything of a few.

When you invoke nationalism, you take a ride on a tiger. Compromise - the sine qua non of successful diplomacy - becomes treason, and there will always be someone to the "right" of you to shout it out. Look what happened to Rabin - shot from behind by a Lone Gunman in the most security-conscious state in the world. Israel cannot define its own borders because of its own inherent contradictions. Any more than it can define what a "Jewish State" is in a manner acceptable to the modern world.

The destruction of Israel does not mean the annihilation of the Jews of Palestine. We both know that. A one-state solution is the only viable option. It must be democratic, but must not raise fears of the "dictatorship of the majority". It doesn't have to be like Saddam's Darkest Arabia. In fact, it could be a real beacon to the Arab - and wider - world.

(Looking back, that reads like a manifesto, but I'm just filling you in on my position before you get the wrong idea from some folks - they know who they are ...)

 

[CapelDodger]

from Mycroft:

I know, I’ve seen it. I’ve also seen concept cars designed by Detroit and exhibited, model "homes of the future" from the 1960’s, and speculations by NASA from the 1970’s on what the space program would be like in the year 2000. As a child I watched "The Jetsons", in my grade-school years I watched Star Trek ...

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?

 

[Skeptic]

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'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.

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 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:

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.

 

[Chaos]

*snip*

It seems that most of you refer to old stories, when I will catch up, I will make up my mind on who is to blame although this conflict resembles a lot to the
M.E. conflict.

Interesting observation.

I think, though, that this is more like the Cold War. Two big groups of posters face each other across an Iron Curtain of divided ideology, exchanging insults all the time, and occasionally fighting proxy wars over some subject or another.
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. Like in the real Cold War, if this turned hot, we´ll catch our share of bullets from both sides.

I´ll leave the decision about who in this forum is the West and who is the Communists up to the readers´ imagination

 

[CapelDodger]

from Mycroft:

You run hot and cold. Sometimes you seem terribly smart, and at other times I cringe with embarrassment for you. You do remember that there were no "Israelis" until some 30 years later, don’t you? You do realize that these men who attended the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919 are all dead, don’t you?

Is their project dead? When did that happen? How smart is it to think that the achievement of a nation-state called "Israel" is anything other than an incident? The Israel of 1949 was just a stage in the process of creating the Jewish State. A process that stretches on into the future, I'm sure you would agree. No prospect of a long-term arrangement presents itself currently. The Wall itself is opposed by the nationalists (which is why the tiger-riding Sharon used to oppose it), and its course subject to conflicting political currents within Israel. "They're all dead" - well, so are Vespasian and Pius IX. Do you think they - and their projects - had no impact on the world they left behind?

 

[CapelDodger]

from zenith-nadir (I know I shouldn't, but ...:

Wow, that almost sounds believable, yet...Lebanon was run by France from 1920 until independence in 1941, full autonomy was granted in 1944.

Granted by whom, Vichy or the Gaullists or the Brits (who fought the Vichy French before the Yanks got involved at Oran)? I don't have the details to hand. There was a European War going on at the times you mention. And the idea that the history, culture and land disputes of Lebanon start under the French is laughable. Try looking into Lebanon under the Turks, say during the 1860's. Try regarding Israel, not as the centre of universal history, but as a peripheral matter (as it is for the Lebanese). Full autonomy in 1944? They're doing what now?

During 1948 thousands of Palestinians fled the war into Lebanon.

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. Look into the Israeli assault on Galilee for some detail. It won't be fact-free, but you'll just have to put with that.

 

[a_unique_person]

I don't think that anybody here needs my alliance. Skeptic can cope pretty good by himself and from what I have read in a couple of threads zenith-nadir doesn't post lies. Nobody caugh him lying. It seems that most of you refer to old stories, when I will catch up, I will make up my mind on who is to blame although this conflict resembles a lot to the
M.E. conflict.

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.

Also, his 'facts' are debateable, that is, I don't think he is telling outright porkies, but his facts are often one dimensional. They don't give a context. Eg, Palestinians killed some Israelis. The context is the ongoing war between Israel and Palestine, in which more Palestinians have been killed than Israelis. It is like saying the Americans killed some Germans in WWI. A totally pointless statement by itself, except for those personally involved, which would make the Americans look like agressors in the conflict.

When there is a war situation, the first question to be resolved is, why is there a war? What is the history of the area, and the countries on both sides of the conflict. If I was to just run off a list of Germans killed by the WWII bombing, it would be a terrible document of human suffering, but I don't know that we would be any closer to understanding the impact on all the people in all the countries in the war, or why the war happened so such an awful event could be prevented from happening again.

 

[a_unique_person]

You are just a bit too resistant to rationality and facts.

Not that I would consider what Skeptic and Z-N (how could I forget him last time?) have to say on "the issue" rationality and facts...

Outside of the interminable debates in this particular topic, what other topics have I debated that have made you think this?

 

[a_unique_person]

Joan Peters...you are taking the piss...at least I hope you are.

No, he's not, unfortunately.

 

[a_unique_person]

Israel made the USA invade Iraq. Classic a_u_p.

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.

Sharon uses bullying tactics. Sharon is responsible. Notice how 30+ years of palestinian terrorism before Sharon was elected is not regarded as bullying tactics.

Sharon was a major force in Israel from the days he was making terrorist raids against Palestinians. In the six day war, he was leading the drive to take as much territory as possible. When Oslo was signed, he was one of those making sure that settlements were going up as fast as possible. When he wanted to stir things up, he made a trip to the Temple Mount. He is not called 'bulldozer' for nothing. For many years, he was unelctable, because he was seen by moderate Israelis as too extreme. See how the times have changed.

I refuse to answer the question because I already answered it "several times before".Stick and stones may break my bones...Yes, what does the fact that some jews desire to settle in a place called Judea and Samaria and live beside Palestinians have to do with the problem in the middle east...er...ahhh...wait a sec...Insults are the tools of the loser.

"Live Beside the Palestinians" - Now that's a whopper of a lie. Refer to Skeptic and his constant questions about the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. You can't have a Jewish state unless all the people who aren't Jews are either stateless or "ethnically cleansed".